Ratcliff v. Archer Motor Sales ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40174
Summary Calendar
ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF, Individually
& as Consultant,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARCHER MOTOR SALES CORPORATION;
BANK ONE, N.A.; BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(96-CV-475)
--------------------
November 3, 1999
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elijah W. Ratcliff appeals the district court’s order granting
a motion to dismiss his civil complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The court also
concluded that the complaint was barred by applicable statutes of
limitation.
A review of the record reflects that the district court did
not err in concluding that Ratcliff’s complaint failed to invoke
either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
§§ 1331, 1332; FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3). Ratcliff has purportedly
sued the private-party defendants for violations of his civil and
constitutional rights, but he has neither identified any
constitutional provisions that the defendants might have violated
nor suggested how the defendants might have acted under color of
state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338,
1342-43 (5th Cir. 1994). Ratcliff’s conclusional references to the
Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
the Truth-in-Lending Act, are not, without more, sufficient to
establish federal jurisdiction. See Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451,
453 (5th Cir. 1996). Ratcliff has not established diversity
jurisdiction because he has not demonstrated the presence of
complete diversity. See Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th
Cir. 1992).
Ratcliff’s brief does not address the district court’s holding
that his state-law claims, which primarily concern an automobile
purchase by Ratcliff’s father in 1992, were barred by applicable
limitations statues and that he lacked standing to bring the
claims. The limitations and standing questions are thus
unreviewable on appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Most of the contentions set forth in Ratcliff’s appellate
brief are irrelevant to the issues at hand. Other claims are
simply preposterous. For instance, he continues to assert that he
is entitled to $1.85 million in damages, without referring to
evidence or even specifically explaining how he has been injured.
2
His appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
We previously cautioned Ratcliff that any additional frivolous
appeals would invite the imposition of sanctions. See Ratcliff v.
Holleman, No. 98-40989 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 1999) (unpublished). We
warned him that, “[t]o avoid sanctions, [he] should review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.” Id. He did not heed the warning.
We “may impose sanctions on appeal, sua sponte if necessary.”
Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we hereby impose monetary sanctions against Ratcliff
of $250, payable to the clerk of this court for deposit into the
Treasury of the United States in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
711(c). See id. Additionally, we direct the clerk of this court
to refuse to accept any further filings by Ratcliff until such
monetary sanction is paid in full. See id. A judge of this court
may grant relief from this requirement in a proper case. See id.Our prior warnings to Ratcliff continue in full force.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
3