Walker v. USA, et al, No. 08-20485 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED November 3, 2008 No. 08-20485 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DEMARIO WALKER Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; President GEORGE W BUSH; GOVERNOR OF TEXAS; UNITED STATES ARMY Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CV-1555 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Demario Walker, a Mississippi Department of Corrections inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 16, 2008. Walker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenged the federal Defense of * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 08-20485 Marriage Act and the Army s don t ask don t tell policy, complaining that his rights to due process and equal protection were violated. On May 12, 2008 four days before this suit was filed Walker had filed another suit raising identical claims against the same defendants in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Civil Action 1:08cv0381. Walker concedes that the complaint in the present suit was a photocopy of his earlier complaint filed in the Western District of Texas. The second complaint, the one filed in the Southern District of Texas, was dismissed. A district court may dismiss a complaint that is duplicative of another federal lawsuit filed by the same plaintiff. Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). There certainly is such duplication here. Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing what was Walker s second complaint on the same matter. We AFFIRM. 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.