Todd v. City of Natchitoches , 84 F. App'x 461 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 7, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30590
Summary Calendar
PAT SHELBY TODD, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NATCHITOCHES; ET AL,
Defendants,
VICTOR JONES, In His Official Capacity
as Sheriff of Natchitoches Parish; LAMAR
MCGASKEY, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s
Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-1032
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pat Shelby Todd, Jr., appeals the district court’s award of
attorneys’ fees to Sheriff Victor Jones and Deputy Lamar McGaskey
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 11. The fees were awarded on the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30590
-2-
basis that the claims asserted by Todd and his attorney were not
warranted by existing law and did not constitute nonfrivolous
arguments for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2). In his complaint,
Todd alleged that his Fourth Amendment right to privacy was
violated when non-community-property items in his home were taken
by his estranged wife, who was accompanied by Deputy McGaskey (at
Sheriff Jones’ direction) and two other officers pursuant to a
state court order.
This court reviews Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of
discretion. Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d 542,
548 (5th Cir. 2001). Neither Sheriff Jones nor Deputy McGaskey
searched the home, and neither seized any items from the home.
Todd failed to provide citation to any relevant case law
suggesting that Sheriff Jones or Deputy McGaskey violated his
Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in
the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees pursuant
to Rule 11. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.