Dwayne Alexander v. New Orleans City, et al, No. 15-30083 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30083 Document: 00513422068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-30083 Summary Calendar March 14, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DWAYNE G. ALEXANDER, individually and doing business as Worldwide Detective Agency, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; MARK C. CARVER; LAWRENCE W. FERGUSON & ASSOCIATES; LAWRENCE W. FERGUSON; NEW ORLEANS CITY; CARLOS O. AYESTAS, JR.; TRAVELERS CASUALTY and SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA; ANGELLA H. MYERS; JERRY R. ARMATIS; BRYAN THOMAS; MYERS LAW GROUP, L.L.P., Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14-CV-1087 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dwayne G. Alexander has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) for an appeal from the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-30083 Document: 00513422068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 No. 15-30083 civil action and denying his motion to remand the case to the state court. The district court determined that non-diverse defendants had been improperly joined because Alexander’s tort claims against them were prescribed, that the tort claims against the remaining defendants were prescribed, and that Alexander’s breach of contract claims against the remaining defendants were barred as res judicata. As Alexander has failed to address the district court’s reasoning, he has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his appeal has not been taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-200, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the appeal is frivolous, the request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See id. at 202 n.24. The appellees’ motions for sanctions are DENIED. Alexander is WARNED, however, that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, which may include monetary penalties and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings and other documents in this court and in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Alexander should review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous. His failure to do so will result in the imposition of sanctions. This warning supplements and does not displace the sanctions orders of the district court. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
