Taylor v. United States ( 1995 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-50353
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM P. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
WILMA M. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-94-CV-897)
November 16, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The Taylors appeal the district court’s order dismissing their
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action with prejudice. The Taylors
allege that the district court erred by dismissing their tort
claims as barred by the application statute of limitations;
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have
no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the
basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on
the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that
Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
dismissing their slander, libel, and fraud claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissing as frivolous their claims
that the Government refused to notify them of its intent to
prosecute and refused to release Mrs. Taylor “as a prisoner”, and
their claim for damages arising out of the Government’s response to
a discovery request; dismissing their Freedom of Information Act
claim; and by dismissing their Privacy Act claims. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. We do note, however, that Mr. Taylor lacks
standing to bring the tort claims against the United States because
his allegations fail to show an actionable interest or actual
injury to himself on which a tort claim under Texas law could rest.
See Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d. 716, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc);
Texas Assn. of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,
445 (Tex. 1995); Nationwide Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v.
McFarland, 887 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994); Carr v. Mobile
Video Tapes, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 613 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). We also
note that dismissal of the claims for refusal to notify of intent
to prosecute, refusal to release “as a prisoner” and for damages
for discovery responses under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was error because
the Taylors are not proceeding in forma pauperis. We affirm the
dismissal because the claims totally lack merit. See Bickford v.
International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981).
Except as indicated, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by
the district court. Taylor v. United States, No. SA-94-897 (W.D.
Tex. March 20, 1995).
2
AFFIRMED.
3