Crenshaw v. USA Agcy Natl Aero ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40487
Summary Calendar
JOHN CRENSHAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA through its agency
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(G-96-CV-342)
February 12, 1998
Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Crenshaw appeals the dismissal of his complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the denial of his motion for relief
from judgment.
First, Crenshaw argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his claims of false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of
process, and malicious prosecution for failure to state a claim.
This court has undertaken a careful de novo review of the record
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
and the briefs for the parties, accepting all well-pleaded facts as
true and viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Shinn
v. College Station Independent School Dist., 96 F.3d 783, 785 (5th
Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1695 (1997); Campbell v. City
of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir. 1995). This Court holds
that Crenshaw failed to allege all of the elements necessary to
obtain relief in his complaint. Accordingly, the district court
did not err in finding that he failed to state a claim.
Second, Crenshaw asserts that the district court erred in
denying his motion for relief from the judgment and abused its
discretion in denying his request for an extension of time for
discovery. After a careful review of the record, this Court holds
that the district court did not err in denying Crenshaw’s motion
for relief from the judgment because Crenshaw’s complaint had not
been amended and therefore, still failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. This Court reviews a district
court’s denial of a request for additional time for discovery for
abuse of discretion. Paul Kadair, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America,
694 F.2d 1017, 1029 (5th Cir. 1983). Crenshaw’s complaint was
dismissed and his motion for relief from judgment was denied
because he failed to state a claim. This deficiency in pleading
cannot be cured by additional discovery. Therefore, this Court
holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Crenshaw additional time for discovery.
2
Finally, Crenshaw argues that the district court erred in
failing to treat the Government’s motion to dismiss as a motion for
more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
However, such treatment is left to the discretion of the district
court, and Crenshaw has failed to demonstrate that the district
court erred. Crenshaw also argues that he should have been
accorded “the opportunity to plead more definitely.” After a
careful review of the record1 and the briefs of both parties, this
Court holds that Crenshaw’s argument is without merit.
This appeal is without arguable merit and therefore is
frivolous. See Shinn, 96 F.3d at 786. Because this appeal is
frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
1
The Government’s motion to dismiss was filed on September 30,
1996, and was not granted until March 26, 1997, during which time
Crenshaw filed many pleadings but never sought to amend his
complaint.
3