Daryl Barnes, et al v. City of Humble, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-20527 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 02/17/2012 [11-20527]

Case: 11-20527

Document: 00511739208

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/27/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 27, 2012

No. 11-20527
Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

DARYL BARNES; DEMEATRICE GOFF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
JACQUELINE ALEXANDER; CITY OF HUMBLE; HUMBLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; COLONY OF HUMBLE APARTMENTS; ARTHUR
MOUTON; NANCY JONES-RUBIO; CATISHA MIKEL,
Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-124

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darryl Barnes and Demeatrice Goff appeal the dismissal of this suit
against the City of Humble and several officers as well as other persons. This
circuit court has read the 73 page brief and the entire file of the case. We read
here many complaints about official and unofficial mistreatment, troubling to

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 11-20527

Document: 00511739208

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/27/2012

No. No. 11-20527
Summary Calendar
the reader if only because of how the appellants see and feel about these events
and their difficulties. However, this court is unable to help the appellants
because we can only do so when the law allows it.
It must be understood that federal courts have very limited jurisdiction,
that is the legal authority to act. In this case, some of the complaints are for
injuries and against defendants that can only justify lawsuits in state court.
And no federal claim can be made against a city unless it shows that the
governing body of the city has adopted a policy that is directly responsible for the
deprivation of a constitutional right. That does not appear in this file. Finally,
as the district court has said, the plaintiff must plead enough to set out how
plausible is the right to a legal remedy. A mere arrest, even though the arrested
person is actually innocent, would not support a claim without an allegation of
how the officer was without good cause to make the arrest. The pleading must
state objectively the reason for the lack of good cause, more than the belief of the
plaintiff.
One more problem these appellants have. They make so many complaints
it interferes with the search for some claim over which the court has authority
and which will justify further procedure.
This court therefore must affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.

2