Lester Washington v. E Baton Rouge Prsh School Sys, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30591 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: JWE , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 06/22/2012 [11-30591]

Case: 11-30591

Document: 00511874115

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/01/2012

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

FILED
June 1, 2012

No. 11-30591

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

LESTER L. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM; EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM BOARD OF DIRECTORS; CHARLOTTE
PLACIDE; ANNETTE MIRE; DIANE HELIRE; PEGGY LEDE; MILLIE
WILLIAMS; DEMOINE RUTLEDGE; ELIZABETH DURAN SWINFORD,
also known as Liz; HOWARD DAVIS; N. DECUIR, Mr.,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(3:09-CV-662)

Before STEWART, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Lester L. Washington, pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint, alleging discrimination in violation of Title VI

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 11-30591

Document: 00511874115

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/01/2012

No. 11-30591
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
We hold pro se complaints to a lower standard than formal pleadings
drafted by attorneys. See Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981).
Nevertheless, such complaints “must set forth facts giving rise to a claim on
which relief may be granted.” Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir.
1993).
We have considered the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The
district court carefully considered Washington’s claims prior to dismissal. While
we read pro se complaints liberally, pro se litigants must still comply with the
law and procedural rules. As we conclude that Washington’s complaint fails to
state a cognizable cause of action, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

2