Meador v. First Security Bank ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40364
Summary Calendar
DAVID LYNN MEADOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FIRST SECURITY NATIONAL BANK, also known as
Chase Manhattan Bank; CHASE BANK OF TEXAS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CHASE MANHATTAN BANK;
THE CHASE MANHATTAN CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-127
--------------------
October 23, 2000
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Lynn Meador, Kentucky prisoner # 118735, appeals the
dismissal of his diversity-jurisdiction lawsuit against the
defendant banks on the basis of res judicata and collateral
estoppel. He has failed to show that his claims for damages and
property rights claimed under a 1911 deed between Ephraim
Garonzik and James Meador are not barred by previous litigation
in the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40364
-2-
Appeals under these doctrines. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. St.
Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir.
1994); RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost, 44 F.3d 1284, 1290 (5th
Cir. 1995); Meadows v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 1189,
1192-94 (E.D. Tex. 1991); Meadows v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 142
F.R.D. 442, 445 (E.D. Tex. 1992); Meador v. William McFaddin,
Estate of, No. 98-40834 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 1999)(unpublished
opinion).** Because Meador’s appeal is without arguable merit,
it is frivolous and must be dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). This dismissal of a frivolous
appeal constitutes one strike against him for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388
(5th Cir. 1996). If Meador accumulates three strikes, he will be
barred from bringing a civil action or appeal as a prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Meador should review
any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous
issues.
Meador is also cautioned that any additional meritless
appeals filed by him regarding his alleged ownership and
possessory interests in property in Jefferson County, Texas,
claimed through the deed signed by his alleged ancestor in 1911,
will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions,
Meador is further cautioned to review his pending appeal in
Meador v. Sun Explor. and Dev’t Co., No. 00-40743, and any other
**
Unpublished opinions issued after January 1, 1996, have
no precedential value except under the doctrines of res judicata
or collateral estoppel. 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40364
-3-
pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous or barred
by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS
WARNING ISSUED.