Marie Reed v. Mike Edwards, No. 12-31252 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-31252 Document: 00512250051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-31252 Summary Calendar May 22, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARIE MARCELL REED, Plaintiff Appellant, versus MIKE EDWARDS, Officer of the Baton Rouge Department, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana No. 3:12-CV-558 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Marie Reed sued numerous defendants, alleging state and federal claims generally based on a notion of false arrest and false imprisonment. Her com* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-31252 Document: 00512250051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2013 No. 12-31252 plaint was dismissed, and we affirmed, agreeing with the district court that the claims were prescribed and that she should not be allowed to amend. See Reed v. Edwards, 487 F. App x 904 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Two weeks later, Reed sued again, making the same claims and more. In a comprehensive report, the magistrate judge recommended the claims be barred by res judicata, finding that the new complaint is both frivolous and malicious. As for claims made against additional defendants, the magistrate judge explained that the assertions were also frivolous and that none of the plaintiff s complaints . . . contain any factual allegations which could even arguably support a federal claim. The district court approved the report and dismissed the complaint. Essentially for the reasons capably stated by the magistrate judge, there is no merit to the second suit, and this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Reed s motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED. 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.