Little v. Rowe ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30644
Summary Calendar
LAWRENCE OZEL LITTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES R. ROWE; JERRY A.
WHITTINGTON; RUTH COX;
VICTOR SIZEMORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-238
May 11, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence Ozel Little, federal prisoner # 53017-0800, argues
that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his
complaint as frivolous based on its being prescribed under
Louisiana law.
Little’s complaint did not raise a federal question and,
thus, the district court’s jurisdiction was based on diversity
because the parties are domiciled in different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
§ 1332(a)(1). Therefore, the Louisiana law of prescription was
properly applied in the case.
Under Louisiana law, Little was required to file an action
for legal malpractice or fraud within one year of the alleged act
of malpractice or within one year of the date that the alleged
act of malpractice or fraud is discovered or should have been
discovered. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:5605 (West 1999); Broussard v.
Toce, 746 So. 2d 659, 662 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Little was in possession of facts more than one year prior
to the date that he filed his complaint which made him aware or
should have made him aware of the fact that the defendants had
engaged in legal malpractice and/or fraud. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as
frivolous based on the time-bar. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998).
Little has not argued on appeal that the district court
erred in denying his motion to amend his complaint to raise
constitutional claims. Therefore, this claim is deemed
abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Little has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2