United States v. Acadiana Treatment Systems, Inc. , 70 F. App'x 181 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31063
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ACADIANA TREATMENT SYSTEMS, INC; ET AL.
Defendants
GLENN K JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-687
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glenn K. Johnson appeals from the district court’s order
denying his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(5) motion to dissolve the 1999
injunction barring him from contacting his former employees; from
going on the properties of the companies he formerly owned with
his relatives; or from interfering with the work of the receiver
(who was released from his obligations in the year 2000)
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31063
-2-
appointed to operate the companies formerly owned by Johnson.
Johnson also appeals from the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)
motion. Johnson contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion to dissolve the injunction because the passage
of time, the closing of the underlying case, and the discharge of
the former receiver constituted changed circumstances. He argues
that maintaining the injunction interferes with his right to
bring a civil action against the former receiver and other
parties and that the district court was obligated to dissolve the
injunction so that any lawsuit he might file could not be
construed as a violation of the injunction. He contends that the
district court erred by denying his Rule 59(e) motion because he
had made clear the bases for his motion to dissolve in his
replies to the other parties’ responses to the motion to
dissolve. Finally, Johnson contends that the district court
erred by denying him an evidentiary hearing.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Johnson’s motion to dissolve the injunction. See Flowers v.
Southern Regional Physicians Servs., Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 800 (5th
Cir. 2002). Johnson does not indicate why he needs access to his
former employees in order to file the lawsuit he alleges he
wishes to pursue. Moreover, the receiver was released in 2000
with the sale of Johnson’s companies. It is unclear how any
lawsuit could be construed as interfering with the former
receiver’s activities. Johnson does not dispute the district
No. 02-31063
-3-
court’s version of the history of his case, a history that
suggests that Johnson might cause trouble for the company that
purchased his companies were the injunction dissolved. The
unrefuted allegation that Johnson used a private investigator to
communicate with the former receiver indicated that Johnson might
seek to interfere with the operations of the companies he
formerly owned. Finally, Johnson has failed to show that the
denial of an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion. See
Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 171 (5th Cir.
1994).
AFFIRMED.