Nesfield v. Natl Maritime Union, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-21022
Conference Calendar
DALE D. NESFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONAL MARITIME UNION; NICHOLAS BACHKO
CO., INC.; UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-2634
--------------------
June 16, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dale Nesfield appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
civil complaint on the basis of res judicata. An action is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata if (1) the parties are
identical in both actions; (2) the prior judgment was rendered by
a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior judgment was
final on the merits; and (4) the cases involve the same cause of
action. Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La.,
Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1994). Nesfield asserts that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-21022
-2-
this, his second lawsuit, was improperly dismissed because he was
raising different claims against the defendants than were raised
in his first lawsuit. However, “cause of action” is defined to
include all claims that were or could have been brought in a
prior action based on the same transaction. See Nilsen v. City
of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 560, 563-64 (5th Cir.
1983)(en banc). As Nesfield has raised no arguably meritorious
issues on appeal, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
Nicholas Bachko, Co., Inc., has filed a motion for sanctions
based upon Nesfield’s continued frivolous filings in the district
court. Such an action is unnecessary at this time. However,
Nesfield is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Nesfield is further cautioned to review his pending
appeal, Nesfield v. United States Coast Guard et al., No. 00-
20081, and any other pending appeals to ensure that they are not
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --