IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50395
Summary Calendar
PAUL JAMES KOUMJIAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-94-CV-374
- - - - - - - - - -
September 24, 1998
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul James Koumjian, Texas prisoner # 582874, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
as barred by the doctrine of in forma pauperis res judicata.
Koumjian’s assertion of district court error is supported by the
record. In the § 1983 complaint Koumjian filed in April 1993 in
the Northern District of Texas, he complained only of the medical
care prison officials provided for an injury to his arm. In his
§ 1983 complaint in the district court below, Koumjian iterated
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50395
-2-
the claims of inadequate medical care vis-a-vis the arm injury.
Koumjian also complained, however, about the retaliation he
suffered as a result of filing the earlier § 1983 action in the
Northern District of Texas. He also asserted a claim of
deliberate indifference concerning an injury that occurred after
he filed his complaint in Northern Texas in which he alleged that
he suffered three broken ribs.
Based on the time Koumjian’s asserted constitutional
violations occurred, he could not have raised either the
retaliation claim or the second deliberate-indifference claim in
his earlier § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, the doctrine of res
judicata does not bar these claims. See United States v.
Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court
erred by sua sponte determining otherwise. See Nagle v. Lee, 807
F.2d 435, 438 n.2 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court’s judgment
therefore is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the district
court for further proceedings in light of this ruling.
Koumjian’s motion to file a third supplemental brief is DENIED.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.