United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 2, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30727
Summary Calendar
JULIAN SCOTT ESPARZA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
C.J. VALLUZO; MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 3:05-CV-259)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julian Scott Esparza appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) action
against his employer, the McDonald’s Corporation, and several individuals as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) for frivolity and for failure to state a
claim, respectively. Reviewing the dismissal as frivolous for an abuse of discretion and
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
the dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373
(5th Cir. 2005), we affirm for the following reasons:
1. Esparza’s hand-written complaint, much like his briefing to this court,
borders on unintelligible. The magistrate judge properly conducted a
hearing to permit Esparza to explain his allegations pursuant to Spears v.
McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Esparza’s explanation revealed
that he was not happy with the limited number of shift hours he was
scheduled to work as a hamburger cook, but that he had no evidence of any
guarantee of a certain number of work hours nor of any discrimination
against him on the part of McDonald’s or his supervisors.
2. We agree with the magistrate that Esparza’s pleadings in this action and
explanation at the Spears hearing collectively fail to show that his IFP
action has an arguable basis in law or fact. Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373.
AFFIRMED.