
    Brian LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT; JP Morgan Chase Bank, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 14-30261, 14-30320, 14-30826,
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2015.
    Brian Lewis, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.
    Harry Joseph Philips, Jr., L. Adam Thames, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Brian Lewis filed a pro se suit against Defendant-Appellant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (“Chase”) in 2012 and the action was dismissed by the district court in October 2013. This court denied Lewis’s appeal of the judgment in April 2014. See Lewis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA., 559 Fed.Appx. 404 (5th Cir.2014). While his appeal in that case was pending before this court, Lewis filed a nearly identical suit against Chase and a second Defendant-Appellant, the Baton Rouge Police Department, the following month in November 2013. In both suits, Lewis wholly failed to assert any comprehensible or legally cognizable claims. Since his initial suit, Lewis has advanced numerous frivolous filings in the district court and in this court. Additionally, eleven months ago, in denying his pro se petition for writ of mandamus and motion to expedite petition, this court issued a warning directing Lewis to refrain from filing further frivolous filings in the district court and this court.

In April 2014, the district court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss Lewis’s second suit (filed in November 2013) against Defendants-Appellants advancing the same frivolous, incomprehensible, conclusory allegations against them. In that judgment the district court also enjoined Lewis from filing any future litigation against Chase based on the same “facts” in this action or in the initial suit filed against Chase in 2012. Lewis appeals that judgment herein.

Because we again find Lewis’s appeal to be frivolous and entirely without merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     