Duhon v. Con Gvt Lafayette

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Duhon v. Con Gvt Lafayette

Opinion

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except In connection with their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

Reference

Status
Unpublished