United States v. Demetrick Smith

Jun 5, 2013
12-40793, 12-40794
Versions:520 F. App'x 248

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Tyler, TX, Joseph Robert Batte, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Demetrick Leon Smith, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Demetrick Leon Smith appeals orders of the district court denying him a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and denying his motion to order the name on his judgment of conviction be changed to Abduss al-Muqtaidir-Sabir Abdullah, the name Smith adopted pursuant to his Islamic faith. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of the time to file a brief. Smith makes no arguments as to the order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief and has waived any challenge to that order. See United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365, 371 (5th Cir.1992).

While we recognize that Muslim prisoners may adopt new names, we find no error in the district court‘s denial of the motion to change Smith‘s committed name. See Felix v. Rolan, 833 F.2d 517, 518-19 (5th Cir.1988).

MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED; AFFIRMED.

Robert Walter Bonner, Gatesville, TX, pro se.

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Walter Bonner, Texas prisoner # 1561662, seeks to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Burleson Police Department officers, Don Adams, Larry Sparks, and Adam King. In his complaint, he alleged that the officers conducted an illegal search and seizure on May 8, 2007, and improperly confiscated his property. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as malicious because it duplicates the complaint in Bonner v. Bosworth, No. 3:10-CV-2150 (N.D.Tex. May 3, 2011).

An action may be dismissed as malicious if it duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous litigation. Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir.1989). The fact that Bonner was not proceeding in forma pauperis in the district court did not preclude the district court from dismissing his complaint as duplicative. See Pittman, 980 F.2d at 995. Bonner has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as duplicative because both the instant complaint and Bonner‘s prior complaint involved “the same series of events” and contained allegations of “many of the same facts.” See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988).

Notes

*
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. 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.