leave to file a civil complaint under a host of federal statutes, alleging employment discrimination by the Department of Transportation and, relatedly, the Federal Aviation Administration. Noting that the proposed complaint asserted claims “again relating to [Arizpe’s] past employment by the Department of Transportation,” the district court concluded that Arizpe failed to show that his claims were not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or another legal doctrine and denied Arizpe’s request for leave. Arizpe appeals that denial. We generally review denials of leave under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Raz, 252 Fed.Appx. 609 (5th Cir.2007) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to grant a “prolific filer” leave to file rine Offshore, Inc., 448 F.3d 825 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a review of the record and Arizpe’s
holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 even though forum selection clause provided that the courts of the commonwealth of massachusetts would be the exclusive forum holding that when action arising under contract containing venue selection clause is filed in court other than that specified in clause case will be transferred to forum selected by contract unless venue selection clause is unreasonable and unjust or invalid due to fraud or overreaching holding that a federal courts order dismissing a case because a forum selection clause mandated venue in england met the requirements for collateral estoppel holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel