Atakapa Indian de Creole v. Edwards ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30461 Document: 00515764329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 3, 2021
No. 20-30461
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
John Bel Edwards, Governor; Sharon Weston Broome,
Mayor; Melinda Mitchell, Mayor; Murphy J. Paul, Jr., Baton
Rouge Police Chief; LaToya Cantrell, Mayor; et al,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-28
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff sued more than 150 defendants alleging civil rights violations,
fraud, and trademark infringement, among other claims. The district court
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the claims were
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30461 Document: 00515764329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-30461
frivolous. The district court also denied leave to amend the complaint. We
AFFIRM.
Plaintiff is a lawyer and self-styled “Trust Protector” of the Atakapa
Indian de Creole Nation. In 2018, he filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The district court
dismissed that lawsuit on the basis of sovereign immunity. We affirmed the
dismissal but did so on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction
because the claims were frivolous. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v.
Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir. 2019).
As the magistrate judge explained when recommending dismissal of
this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s claims here are similar to those he alleged in 2018.
Plaintiff invokes myriad federal laws and treaties yet makes no coherent
argument as to why he is entitled to relief under any of them. The defendants
include corporations and local, national and international leaders, among
others, but Plaintiff does not explain their connection to the allegations. For
the reasons we explained in Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation, we hold that the
district court properly dismissed this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction because
the claims were frivolous. See id.The district court also denied leave to amend the complaint.
Although the district court did not explain its reasons, we can affirm that
denial “if the futility of amendment is readily apparent and the record reflects
ample and obvious grounds for denying leave to amend.” Heinze v. Tesco
Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 485 (5th Cir. 2020). We hold that the futility of any
amendment here was readily apparent and justified by the record.
We AFFIRM.
2