Brainerd v. Sawyer ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-40348
    Conference Calendar
    ADRON P. BRAINERD,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JOE J. SAWYER,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. C-01-CV-532
    --------------------
    October 29, 2002
    Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Adron P. Brainerd has appealed the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his complaint for failing to satisfy the amount-in-
    controversy requirement of 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    .      A district court
    may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject-matter
    jurisdiction.     See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).   The district
    court’s order of dismissal is reviewed de novo.      Musslewhite v.
    State Bar of Texas, 
    32 F.3d 942
    , 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    No. 02-40348
    -2-
    Brainerd does not dispute the district court’s conclusion
    that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.    Instead,
    he complains that the district court did not permit him to amend
    his complaint to cure the defect in his jurisdictional
    allegations.   Brainerd attempted to file an amended complaint
    after the district court entered its judgment, but Brainerd’s
    pleadings were ordered unfiled as they were not in compliance
    with the local rules.     Brainerd did not attempt in the district
    court to cure the defects in his pleadings and does not explain
    on appeal why the district court abused its discretion by
    striking the pleadings.     See Clark v. Tarrant County, 
    798 F.2d 736
    , 747 (5th Cir. 1986) (standard of review).    Moreover,
    Brainerd does not suggest in his brief what facts could have been
    alleged to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
    The appeal is frivolous and must be
    DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-40348

Filed Date: 10/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014