Full Opinion

Case: 26-60037 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-60037 November 9, 2026 ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk In the Matter of Ikechukwu Hyginus Okorie, Debtor, Ikechukwu Hyginus Okorie, Appellant, versus PriorityOne Bank; Kimberly R. Lentz; Derek A. Henderson, Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:25-CV-45 ______________________________ Before Duncan, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * This is the latest in a series of appeals from the 2019 bankruptcy of Dr. Ikechukwu Okorie (“Okorie”). In a meticulous opinion, the district court _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-60037 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-60037 upheld the bankruptcy court’s ruling that each of Okorie’s claims was barred by res judicata. We AFFIRM. I Since Okorie received a discharge in 2021, he has filed a series of pro se objections and adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court, resulting in multiple appeals to the district court and to our court. See In re Okorie, No. 2:25-CV-45-HSO-BWR, 2025 WL 4072483, at *1-2 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 18, 2025) (collecting cases). The current appeal concerns one of Okorie’s creditors, PriorityOne Bank (POB). On July 25, 2023, Okorie initiated an adversary proceeding, alleging that POB, its lawyer, and the bankruptcy trustee violated the automatic stay related to a foreclosure on one of Okorie’s properties; breached their fiduciary duties; and negligently and intentionally caused him emotional distress. The bankruptcy court held that it had already ruled on these claims and that Okorie’s “continued attempts to relitigate [them] are barred by res judicata.” The court then denied Okorie’s motion for reconsideration, ruling that Okorie had “continu[ed] to rehash arguments he has made over and over again,” and which had been repeatedly “denied.” Okorie then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders. Okorie now appeals to our court, raising a slew of arguments. These include arguments that the district court erred by (1) applying res judicata without first assessing the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) declining to analyze his allegations of fraud on the court; (3) holding res judicata barred claims arising after final orders; (4) treating non-merits adjudications as preclusive; (5) incorrectly determining the bankruptcy court properly sua sponte raised res judicata; (6) denying him due process; (7) not 2 Case: 26-60037 Document: 50-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-60037 addressing whether the bankruptcy court issued a void judgment; and (8) committing “manifest injustice requiring reversal.” II When reviewing the district court’s ruling on a bankruptcy appeal, we apply the same standards as the district court. Matter of Houston Reg’l Sports Network, L.P., 886 F.3d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 2018). We review the bankruptcy court’s factfinding for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Id. III Okorie’s various arguments arise against the background of res judicata. That doctrine applies when “(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.” Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). 1 Okorie’s argument that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction fails. That court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), which provides jurisdiction over civil claims related to the bankruptcy. See also Okorie v. PriorityOne Bank, No. 2:25-CV-150-KHJ-MTP, 2026 WL 2517149, at *2–4 (S.D. Miss. July 31, 2026) (rejecting same jurisdictional argument), appeal docketed, No. 26-60647 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2026). Furthermore, contrary to Okorie’s arguments, all the prior adjudications that the courts below found to be preclusive were final judgments on the merits. See Matter of Okorie, No. 24-60377, 2025 WL _____________________ 1 Okorie does not challenge the district court’s findings regarding the parties or privity and has therefore forfeited that issue. 3 Case: 26-60037 Document: 50-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-60037 603890 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (affirming district court’s final order affirming the “Annulment Order”); Matter of Okorie, No. 24-60469, 2024 WL 4867073 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024) (same as to the “Sanctions Order”); Matter of Okorie, No. 24-60255, 2024 WL 4471734 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (same as to the “Claim Objections Order”). Next, the district court correctly held that Okorie’s current complaint relates to the same claims or causes of action involved in the prior adjudications. As the court explained, the current claims “relate to [Okorie’s] standing to challenge POB’s claim, his prior positions taken in the bankruptcy regarding the validity and amount of POB’s claim, whether POB and [POB’s attorney] violated the automatic stay with the foreclosure, the Trustee’s alleged failures, Dr. Okorie’s frivolous filings and collateral attacks on the Bankruptcy Court's orders, and his prior failures to present any evidence supporting his derogatory allegations against the Trustee and creditors’ counsel.” Okorie identifies no reason why his current claims could not have been litigated in the prior proceedings. Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 571 (explaining preclusion bars claims that “should have been raised in an earlier suit”). In sum, because all four elements were met, the district court correctly determined that res judicata required dismissing Okorie’s claims. Finally, Okorie’s other arguments are also unavailing. For instance, he shows no error in the bankruptcy court’s decision to raise res judicata on its own motion. See Mowbray v. Cameron Cnty., 274 F.3d 269, 281 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding bankruptcy court could sua sponte raise res judicata where all prior actions were in that court and all relevant facts were before it). Nor does he substantiate his allegations of “fraud on the court” by showing anything like “an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 4 Case: 26-60037 Document: 50-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-60037 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978)). And finally, Okorie makes no showing that the proceedings violated his due process rights or resulted in manifest injustice. AFFIRMED. 5