Opinion
24-50537
10-21-2024
Abraham Pinzon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Department of Health and Human Services; California Department of Health Care Services; Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency, Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:24-CV-320
Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.[*]
Abraham Pinzon appeals the with-prejudice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the California Department of Health Care Services, and Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency. Pinzon contends the district court erred in dismissing his in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We AFFIRM.
We review a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2009). Under this subsection, the court shall sua sponte dismiss any in forma pauperis action it finds "frivolous or malicious." An action is "malicious" if, inter alia, it "duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff." Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).
Adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court dismissed Pinzon's suit because he has brought the same conspiracy claims against the same defendants in four other suits, including one still pending in the Eastern District of California. See Pinzon v. Cal. Dep't of Health Care Servs., No. 2:23-cv-0008, 2024 WL 557761 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024); Pinzon v. Leoz, No. 3:22-cv-07277 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023); Pinzon v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:23-cv-02012, 2023 WL 5275124 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2023); Pinzon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. JRR-23-2714, 2023 WL 6643314 (D. Md. Oct. 12, 2023), aff'd, No. 23-2182, 2024 WL 863662 (4th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024). On appeal, Pinzon fails to address the grounds on which his suit was dismissed.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Pinzon's suit under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court's judgment is AFFIRMED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Additionally, in light of threatening statements in Pinzon's appellate brief, Pinzon is WARNED that any further frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court's jurisdiction.
[*] This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.