Caballero v. Robinson

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50742
Summary Calendar

JUAN LOUIS CABALLERO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM H. ROBINSON; RALPH LOPEZ;
JOHN C. SPARKS, Dr.; CYNDIE TAYLOR KRIER;
CUNNINGHAM, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
(SA-94-CV-998)

July 8, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Louis Caballero (Caballero) appeals the grant of summary

judgment for the defendants in his in forma pauperis civil rights

action regarding alleged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
(ETS) in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center (BCADC). This is

approximately the seventh in forma pauperis civil rights action

filed by Caballero in respect to his confinement in the BCADC, all

prior actions having been determined unfavorably to him. Caballero

contends that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by

exposing him to ETS, that defendants Lopez and Krier should be held

liable as policy makers, that the defendants are not entitled to

qualified immunity, that his lawsuit was not res judicata because

only defendant Lopez was a defendant in his particular earlier

lawsuit held to be res judicata and none of the other defendants

were named in that lawsuit, and that the district court should not

have imposed costs or sanctions on him.

Defendants Cunningham, Robinson, Sparks, and Krier were in

privity with defendant Lopez and BCADC, who were defendants in the

referenced earlier lawsuit (and in that lawsuit the court had also

treated the case as if Bexar County were a defendant). See Russell

v. SunAmerica Securities, Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1173-1175 (5th Cir.

1992). Caballero’s contention that his suit was not res judicata

because he named new defendants is unavailing. Moreover,

Caballero’s present suit was plainly duplicative of his said

earlier suit and hence was subject to dismissal as malicious and

abusive under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d

1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we need not consider

Caballero’s other substantive contentions (which in any event

2
appear to lack any merit). Finally, the district court did not

abuse its discretion by imposing costs on Caballero. Moore v.

McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED

3