Ross v. Walker

Case: 25-60606 Document: 30-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-60606 March 27, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Kimberly Monique Ross, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus James Christopher Walker, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Chancellor for Holmes and Madison Counties, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:25-CV-534 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Jones and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Kimberly Monique Ross filed a complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that the defendant, Chancellor for Holmes and Madison Counties, committed various retaliatory actions against her. In a thorough and cogent opinion, the district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as duplicative of a prior lawsuit.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-60606 Document: 30-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2026

No. 25-60606

The district court noted that Ross’s complaint “echoe[d] the allegations of” a prior lawsuit that she had brought against the same defendant. “IFP complaints may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915[(e)] when they seek to relitigate claims which allege 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).

Ross now moves this court to allow her to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

In her IFP motion, Ross does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that her lawsuit is duplicative of her prior lawsuit. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, she has failed to show a non-frivolous issue with respect to the district court’s dismissal of her § 1983 complaint. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Her motion to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.