Benny Falcon v. Tyler Holly, No. 15-10966 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10966 Document: 00513644394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10966 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 19, 2016 BENNY FALCON, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. TYLER HOLLY, Correctional Officer III, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CV-66 Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benny Falcon, Texas prisoner # 664986, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Tyler Holly, an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, alleging that Holly used excessive force against him. After a jury trial, the jury found that Holly did not use excessive force against Falcon, and the district court entered a judgment in favor of Holly. This court affirmed the district court’s judgment. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-10966 Document: 00513644394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 No. 15-10966 Over a year after this court’s decision, Falcon filed another notice of appeal of the district court’s judgment and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Falcon’s IFP motion and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, Falcon is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the district court’s judgment has been affirmed by this court, and this court’s decision has become final, the doctrine of res judicata precludes Falcon from relitigating the issues that were raised and decided by the district court and affirmed by this court. See id. Falcon’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny the IFP motion and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). Falcon previously received two strikes under § 1915(g). See Falcon v. Benson, No. 5:09-CV-00073 (N.D. Tex. March 30, 2010); Falcon v. Renouf, No. 5:08-CV-000140 (N.D. Tex. April 20, 2009). Because Falcon has accumulated three strikes under § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 2 Case: 15-10966 Document: 00513644394 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2016 No. 15-10966 IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED. 3
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.
