(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides:"The publicat ion of opinions that have no precedential value and
merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense
on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 94-10696
Summary Calendar
MARLON EUGENE BAILEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF AMARILLO, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:94-CV-2)
(January 24, 1995)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of an in
forma pauperis complaint filed by a state prisoner. We AFFIRM.
Marlon Eugene Bailey filed a civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Amarillo, Texas; City of
Amarillo Police Officer Shawn McLeland; and City of Amarillo Police
Chief Jerry Neal. Bailey alleged that Officer McLeland used
excessive force when he shot Bailey and that Chief Neal was

-- 1 of 3 --

2
consciously indifferent and negligent in failing to properly train
and instruct McLeland in "proper use of force policies."
The district court entered an order to show cause why Bailey
should not be sanctioned because his civil rights complaint was
identical, with the exception of the addition of Chief Neal as a
defendant, to Bailey's previously filed civil rights complaint that
was adjudicated on its merits. Summary judgment was granted in
favor of the defendants in the previous action, which arose from
the identical shooting incident. In his response to the district
court's order to show cause, Bailey restated the allegations in his
complaint and added that his complaint was "not to harass, disrupt,
or otherwise burden the Court or the defendants."
The magistrate judge recommended that Bailey's complaint
(Cause no. 2:94-CV-002) be dismissed as malicious pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) because it was identical to his previously filed
complaint (Cause no. 2:90-0052), with the exception of the addition
of defendant Neal. The docket sheet indicated that the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge that was sent to Bailey was
returned marked "Return to sender, Refused, Not here." After an
independent examiniation of the record, the district court adopted
the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, noting that
no objections had been filed to such report and recommendation, and
dismissed Bailey's complaint. Bailey filed a timely notice of
appeal.
Section 1915(d) provides for the dismissal of IFP cases if the
court is "satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."

-- 2 of 3 --

3
"[I]n forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed as frivolous if
they seek to relitigate claimes that allege substantially the same
facts arising from a common series of events which have already
been unsucessfully litigated by the plaintiff." Pittman v. Moore,
980 F.2d 994, 994 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878
F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989)). It
is "malicious" for a pauper to file a lawsuit that is duplicative
of prior federal court litigation. Id. at 995.
In his appellate brief, Bailey restates the allegations in his
complaint, arguing that Office McLeland used excessive force and
that Chief Neal was negligent in failing to properly train and
instruct McLeland. Bailey does not address the district court's
dismissal of his complaint as duplicative.
Although this Court liberally construes the briefs of pro se
appellants, arguments must be briefed to be preserved. Price v.
Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988).
Generally, claims not argued in the body of the brief are abandoned
on appeal, even if the appellant is proceeding pro se. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Bailey
does not address the district court's dismissal of his complaint
pursuant to § 1915(d) as duplicative and malicious, he has
abandoned the sole issue upon which the trial court's judgment was
based and his appeal accordingly fails. Thus, this Court AFFIRMS
the district court's decision.

-- 3 of 3 --