Jesse Reece, Sr., seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous on the basis that it was dupli-cative of a previously dismissed lawsuit. The court also denied Reece leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith.

The district court was correct that a complaint filed IFP may be dismissed as frivolous if it alleges “substantially the same facts arising from a common series of events which have already been unsuccessfully litigated by the IFP plaintiff.” Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, it is obvious that Reece’s current complaint duplicates his prior suit. Because the appeal does not present any legal points arguable on them merits, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th CiR. R. 42.2. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is DENIED.