Peters v. Banner Health

── Peters v. Banner Health ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 26-20035 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 26-20035 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 4, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Kisha Peters, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Banner Health, doing business as BHT Banner Health of Texas, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-772 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * In March 2020, Kisha Peters sued her former employer, Banner Health, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The next month, Peters began representing herself pro se. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-20035 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 No. 26-20035 Over the ensuing two years, Peters filed a constant stream of motions and other papers that “strain[ed] the [district] [c]ourt’s ability to manage its docket efficiently.” After a four-month span in which she filed fifty-five motions, the court ordered that Peters “must request leave of court before filing any Motion, Notice, Request, or any other document.” Peters repeatedly violated this and other explicit court orders by filing discovery requests without seeking leave of court and filing motions exceeding a court- ordered page limit. She also ignored court instructions to cease filing motions containing legal citations and quotations hallucinated by generative artificial intelligence. The court repeatedly struck her motions and discovery filings for failing to comply with its orders. Peters’ conduct was so disruptive that the magistrate judge observed in a December 2025 discovery hearing that Peters was “excessively using Court resources” and had made it “impossible to litigate this case.” Peters’ conduct culminated in December 2025 when she refused to sit for a court-ordered follow-up deposition. She had sat for an initial deposition on December 3, 2025, but continually objected and refused to answer questions in what the court described as a “calculated campaign of obstruction.” At a hearing on December 8, the magistrate judge ordered Peters to sit for a follow-up deposition on December 12 and extended the discovery deadline to that date. Peters refused to appear for the follow-up deposition and invited Banner to seek dismissal. On December 15, Banner moved for dismissal of the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b). The magistrate judge issued a twenty-three-page memorandum detailing Peters’ long record of misconduct and recommending dismissal. After reviewing this and Peters’ objections, the district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case. 2  Case: 26-20035 Document: 62-1 Page: 3 Date Fi