Effort Alexander v. Jim Hood, et al, No. 17-60569 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60569 Document: 00514380820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60569 Summary Calendar EFFORT ALEXANDER, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. JIM HOOD, Attorney General, State of Mississippi; DESOTO COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:16-CV-202 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Effort Alexander appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights case on grounds of res judicata. We affirm, because the test for res judicata is met. Alexander previously filed two lawsuits against parties who are identical to or in privity with the parties in this case on the “same nucleus of operative facts.” See Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60569 Document: 00514380820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 No. 17-60569 2005). The district courts dismissed each case in final judgments on the merits. 1 See id. Although the attorney general was not a named defendant in the prior cases, in Alexander I, he represented the original defendant, and in Alexander II, the state of Mississippi was a defendant. Thus, the parties are identical or in privity. See Russell v. Sunamerica Secur. Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1173–74 (5th Cir. 1992). Further, Alexander’s claim that the attorney general violated his civil rights in asserting that Alexander was responsible for a disputed dam concerns the same “nucleus of operative facts” as the prior cases, as the district court concluded. See Singh, 428 F.3d at 571. Finally, the claim could and should have been previously raised, as the attorney general’s office asserted to Alexander that he was responsible for the dam in 1996 and in defending Alexander I. See In re Paige, 610 F.3d 865, 873–74 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. The district court dismissed Alexander I as time barred. Alexander v. Desoto Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist., No. 3:14-CV-147-MPM-SAA (N.D. Miss. March 25, 2015), aff’d, 616 F. App’x 156 (5th Cir. 2015) (mem.) (per curiam). In Alexander II, the court dismissed as to the State of Mississippi for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Alexander v. DeSoto Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist., No. 3:15-CV-179-DMB-JMV, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114740 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 26, 2016). Both dismissals were thus “on the merits” for res judicata purposes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 880 F.2d 818, 819–20 (5th Cir. 1989); Daigle v. Opelousas Health Care, Inc., 774 F.2d 1344, 1348 (5th Cir. 1985). 1 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.
