eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-02

Duhon v. Con Gvt Lafayette ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30867
Summary Calendar
JOHN AARON DUHON; BOBBY DUHON; LINDA DESHOTELS DUHON; DIRK D.
DUHON; CHRISTINA D. DUHON; RONOUS J. DUHON; GLENDA G. DUHON;
SIDNEY L. DUHON; CHRISTINE A. DUHON; GRACE D. HACKNEY; JAMES H.
HACKNEY; MASIL MIRE; ELLIS MIRE, JR.; VICKIE D. BADEAUX; LARRY
BADEAUX; BRADLEY DUHON; SHARON DUHON; RICHARD DUHON; VICKIE
DUHON; ELLA M. DUHON; THOMAS LEBLANC; DINA LEBLANC; NELL R.
LEBLANC; JOHN A. LEBLANC; ADOLA A. DUHON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF LAFAYETTE; ET AL.,
Defendants,
POLICE JURY OF VERMILION PARISH; RITTER TRAHAN, in the capacity
of President of Vermilion Parish Police Jury; CARROLL DUHON;
HUBERT FAULK; MINOS BROUSSARD; TERRY BESSARD; MARK POCHE; E.J.
BROUSSARD; EDVAL J. SIMON, JR.; KENNETH DEHART; LOUIS JOE HARDY;
PURVIS ABSHIRE; T.J. PREJEAN, JR.; MICHAEL J. BERTRAND; EUGENE
SELLERS; MALCOLM B. PRICE, JR., in his capacity as Chairman of
Louisiana Tax Commission; PERVIS MEAUX, also known as Pee Wee
Meaux; LUTHER HARDEE, also known as Buster Hardeel,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CV-1690)
_________________________________________________________________
January 31, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
In connection with their
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action claiming
numerous defendants have conspired to “exile” them from Lafayette
Parish by transferring their place of residence to Vermilion
Parish, by changing the boundary between the Parishes, Plaintiffs
challenge the summary-judgment dismissal of the Vermilion Parish
Defendants and Malcolm Price, Jr., Chairman of the Louisiana Tax
Commission.   The    genesis   of   this     action   appears    to    be   the
successful challenge by one Defendant to the residency of one of
the Plaintiffs in an election for the Lafayette Parish Council.
See Broussard v. Duhon,
    748 So. 2d 14
     (La. Ct. App.), writ denied,
    747 So. 2d 1129
     (La. 1999).
A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same
standard as did the district court.        E.g., Stewart v. Murphy,
    174 F.3d 530
    , 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    528 U.S. 906
     (1999).                Such
judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories,    and   admissions    on    file,   together    with      any
affidavits filed in support of the motion, “show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”.           FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)
(emphasis added).     “We view the pleadings and summary judgment
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”               Stewart,
    174 F.3d at 533
    .
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
It goes without saying that a properly supported summary
judgment motion cannot be defeated by conclusional allegations,
unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence. E.g.,
Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
    37 F.3d 1069
    , 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc).   And, a summary judgment may be affirmed on “any basis
raised below and supported by the record”.           Grenier v. Medical
Eng’g Corp.,
    243 F.3d 200
    , 207 (5th Cir. 2001).
A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the “evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party”.    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
    477 U.S. 242
    ,
248 (1986).   Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue
of material fact with respect to their allegations that there
existed a conspiracy to change the parish boundary.          Accordingly,
we affirm the dismissal of the Vermilion Parish Defendants on that
basis.   See Grenier,
    243 F.3d at 207
    .
We affirm the dismissal of Price on the ground that Plaintiffs
have failed even to allege a violation of a constitutional right by
Price.
    Id.
     Although Plaintiffs contend that the “changing” of the
parish   boundary   violated   their   rights   to   due   process,   equal
protection, and association, they make no contention that remotely
suggests a constitutionally prohibited act by Price.
AFFIRMED
3