Case: 17-40068 Document: 00514142918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-40068 FILED
Summary Calendar September 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LOUIS CHARLES HAMILTON, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, SR., 45th President,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-MC-16
Before DAVIS, PRADO, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Louis Hamilton, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court may dismiss a suit by an IFP plaintiff as
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, Siglar v. Hightower, 112
F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997), and we review a dismissal of a claim as frivolous
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-40068 Document: 00514142918 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2017
No. 17-40068
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion. Ruiz v. United States,
160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1996).
After reviewing Hamilton’s filings, we hold that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in deeming Hamilton’s case frivolous. Hamilton brings
suit against Donald Trump, Sr. and others on behalf of a number of plaintiffs—
some living, some dead—but we are unable to determine what remedy he seeks
and under what legal authority he seeks it. Although we construe pro se
pleadings liberally, a suit that is based on an “indisputably meritless” legal
theory—or one that is founded in no theory at all—is frivolous and must be
dismissed. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment
of the district court is thus AFFIRMED. Because Hamilton’s other pending
motions (including one to recuse two members of this Court apparently because
of their race) are also frivolous, they are similarly DENIED.
We also warn Hamilton that, given his propensity for filing meritless
claims, future frivolous filings will result in sanctions, which may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court. 1 See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195–97 (5th Cir. 1993).
1This court has already dismissed one appeal by Hamilton as frivolous, Hamilton v.
Zanders, 463 Fed. App’x 244 (5th Cir. 2012), and he has been barred from filing cases in the
Southern District of Texas unless he obtains leave of court. See Hamilton v. United States,
No. 4:16-CV-964 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2017).
2