Dionel De La Cruz has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous, denying IFP, and reiterating its prior injunction barring De La Cruz from filing pleadings without leave of court. De La Cruz contends that his civil and due process rights were violated when Judge *450 Vela dismissed his complaint, because, as a named defendant in the complaint, Judge Vela should have disqualified himself.

De La Cruz’s lawsuit is clearly frivolous and asserts claims against parties which are immune from suit. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Johnson v. Kegans, 870 F.2d 992, 995-96 (5th Cir. 1989). The better procedure, however, would have been for Judge Vela to have recused himself because he was a named defendant in the proceeding. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instruction to refer the matter to another non-defendant district court judge for dismissal.

IFP GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED with instruction.