Jackson v. Pension Bnft Guarnt, No. 06-30754 (5th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ April 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30754 Summary Calendar _____________________ JOHNNY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP., Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria USDC No. 1:06-CV-214 _________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny L. Jackson appeals the district court s dismissal of his claims against Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. ( PBGC ). The district court dismissed Jackson s claims as barred by res judicata because Jackson raised the same claims against PBGC in a previous suit he filed in 2001. Jackson argues on appeal, as he argued below, that the PBGC Appeals Board undervalued the amount of his pension payments. For the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM. Jackson s claims are barred by res judicata because (1) the parties * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. in the previous suit and present suit, Jackson and PBGC, are identical; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered a prior judgment against Jackson on February 24, 2003; (3) the February 24, 2003 judgment was final and on the merits; and (4) Jackson raises the same claims against PBGC that he raised in the previous suit. See Matter of Howe, 913 F.2d 1138, 1143-44 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Jackson s claims is AFFIRMED. 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.