IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30683
Summary Calendar
__________________
JAMES TUCKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-2161
- - - - - - - - - -
November 7, 1995
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Tucker filed a complaint against Montgomery Ward
Credit Corporation alleging violations of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692o. The district
court granted Montgomery Ward's motion for summary judgment based
on the doctrine of res judicata.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-30683
-2-
An action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata if
"1) the parties are identical in both actions; 2) the prior
judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
3) the prior judgment was final on the merits; and 4) the cases
involve the same cause of action." Travelers Ins. Co. v. St.
Jude Hosp. of Kenner, LA, Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1696 (1995). All four factors are
satisfied. Tucker and Montgomery Ward are the only parties to
both suits; the state court has jurisdiction to render judgment
on Tucker's counterclaims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, see 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1691e(f), 1692k(d) (West 1982); the state court reached the
merits of Tucker's counterclaim; and both actions involved the
same cause of action.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Tucker's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. Tucker has not
shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the
appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We take
this opportunity to warn Tucker that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will be met with an
appropriate sanction under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
38. To avoid sanctions, Tucker should review all pending appeals
to ensure that they do not raise arguments already resolved by
this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tucker's motions for summary
judgment, to amend the complaint, for the appeal to be heard by
No. 95-30683
-3-
three judges, to compel an officer of the United States to
perform his duty, and to strike Montgomery Ward's motion are
DENIED. Montgomery Ward's motions to dismiss the appeal and for
sanctions are DENIED.