Leonard Price v. United States ( 2020 )

Case: 20-30307 Document: 00515582152 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 29, 2020
No. 20-30307 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Leonard Price; Darryl Price; Stanley Price, and, on behalf
of Mrs. Ora Price,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
United States; Ivan L. R. Lemelle, Officially and
Individually; Kurt D. Engelhardt, Officially and
Individually; Carl J. Barbier, Officially and
Individually; Mary Ann Vial Lemon, Officially and
Individually; Lance Africk, Officially and
Individually; Veronica E. Henry, Officially and
Individually; Phelps Dunbar L.L.P., Officially; Harry
Rosenberg, Individually; Housing Authority of New
Orleans; Kevin Oufnac, Officially and Individually;
Michael Group, L.L.C., Officially; Treasure Village,
Incorporated, Officially; Interstate Realty
Management, Incorporated, Officially; Calisha Jolla,
Officially; James A. Ryan & Associates, L.L.C.,
Officially; James A. Ryan, III, Individually; Jeffrey A.
Clayton, Individually,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CV-817
Case: 20-30307 Document: 00515582152 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 20-30307
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in forma pauperis alleging, among other
things, collusion and dishonesty of federal and state judges presiding over
previous lawsuits. The district court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
We AFFIRM.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs have filed multiple, repetitive lawsuits related to their
family’s residency in the former Desire Housing Development in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Unhappy with the outcome of those lawsuits, Plaintiffs,
proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit alleging “a lack of integrity,
dishonesty, collaboration, collusion and conspiracy” among the defendants,
who are federal and state court judges, attorneys, the Housing Authority of
New Orleans, and property management companies.
The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It held that Plaintiffs’ claims were “frivolous or
malicious, fail[ed] to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or [sought]
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” The
district court also imposed a sanction against plaintiff Stanley Price because
of his frivolous and malicious lawsuits. Specifically, the district court ordered
the Clerk of Court to decline to file a complaint submitted by Price without
the prior written authorization of a district court judge and to refer Price’s
motions to proceed in forma pauperis to a district court judge. Plaintiffs
appeal.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-30307 Document: 00515582152 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 20-30307
DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal of the complaint
Our standard of review differs according to the grounds on which the
district court dismissed the complaint. When the district court dismisses a
complaint as frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), our review is for abuse
of discretion. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). When the
district court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim under Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), our review is de novo. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273,
275 (5th Cir. 1998). Since the district court dismissed the complaint on both
grounds, our review is de novo. Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373.
Plaintiffs allege that federal and state court judges engaged in
misconduct in presiding over Plaintiffs’ lawsuits and that the United States
is responsible for that misconduct. Federal and Louisiana state court judges,
though, are immune from suit for claims arising out of actions taken in their
judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991) (immunity for
federal judges); Berry v. Bass, 102 So. 76, 80 (La. 1924) (immunity for
Louisiana state court judges). The conduct alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint
clearly falls within each respective judge’s judicial capacity. The district
court properly dismissed the claims against the United States and federal and
state court judges.
As to the remaining claims, it is apparent on the face of Plaintiffs’
complaint that many of them already have been litigated and resolved. The
district court did not err when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on that basis.
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
It is also apparent on the face of Plaintiffs’ complaint that their claims
are time barred. For tort claims, Louisiana imposes a one-year prescriptive
period. La. Civ. Code art. 3492. That same prescriptive period applies
to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d 793, 794–95 (5th
Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs complain of conduct occurring between 2001 and 2016,
3
Case: 20-30307 Document: 00515582152 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 20-30307
but their complaint was not filed until March 9, 2020. The district court
properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred.
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)
We review the district court’s ruling on Rule 60(b)(4) de novo. Carter
v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). We have previously held that
Rule 60(b)(4) should be “narrowly construed” and that relief should be
granted only where the court lacked jurisdiction or “acted in a manner
inconsistent with due process of law.” Id. at 1005-06 (quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs have pled only vague and conclusory allegations of collusion and
corruption. These are insufficient to establish a basis for relief under Rule
60(b)(4).
C. Sanction
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s imposition of
sanctions for frivolous and malicious lawsuits. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff Stanley Price has filed numerous lawsuits,
many of which were repetitive and meritless. Resolution of these lawsuits
has required a significant expenditure of party and judicial resources. There
was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of a sanction
against Stanley Price.
AFFIRMED.
4