Autrey v. State of Mississippi

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60889
Summary Calendar
TYRES F AUTREY
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
Defendants
PASCAGOULA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CV-299-SR
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tyres F. Autrey, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Pascagoula
Police Department in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
failure to investigate adequately the shooting death of his
mother, Evangerland Diane Autrey, on June 9, 1975. Autrey argues
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60889
-2-
that Judge Senter’s ruling granting summary judgment showed that
he had no interest in his claims, just as the Police Department
showed no interest in prosecuting his mother’s murderer. He
contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to
amend his complaint. He argues that there are unique and
extenuating circumstances surrounding the three-year statute of
limitations.
Autrey does not make any argument concerning the district
court’s ruling that he had no legally enforceable right to
challenge the adequacy of the Police Department’s investigation
in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages. The district court
correctly ruled that Autrey had no constitutional right to have
someone criminally prosecuted for his mother’s death. Oliver v.
Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). The alleged actions,
or inaction, of the Police Department did not infringe any
legally recognized right belonging to Autrey, and so he had no
standing to sue. Dohaish v. Tooley, 670 F.2d 934, 936-37 (10th
Cir. 1982) (holding father had no standing to sue for alleged
discrimination in the non-prosecution of the killers of his son).
The district court’s memorandum opinion and order does not
show a lack of interest in Autrey’s case. Autrey does not state
how being allowed to file an amended complaint would overcome the
district court’s ruling that he did not have standing to sue.
The statute of limitations issue need not be addressed due to
No. 02-60889
-3-
Autrey’s failure to challenge the other independent basis for
granting summary judgment.
Autrey’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. The motion to supplement the record is DENIED.