Guillory v. Flewellen ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20050
Summary Calendar
ZACHARY J. GUILLORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HUGH FLEWELLEN, President (Westmont Civic
Club and as an Individual); JEFF SAYLES,
Vice President and as an Individual; CINDY
ELLIS, Secretary and as an Individual, et
al. also, Jointly and Severally or any others,
whom subscribe or any which may do so
jointly and severally,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-3356
--------------------
December 3, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zachary J. Guillory appeals the district court’s order
granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A review of the record reflects that the district court did
not err in concluding that Guillory’s complaint failed to invoke
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-20050
-2-
either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332; FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). In his complaint,
Guillory sued several neighbors in his Houston, Texas,
neighborhood, alleging that they were harassing, libeling, and
defaming him and committing similar torts against him. Guillory
has purportedly sued the private-party defendants for violations
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but his allegations have no bearing
on the protections afforded by that legislation. See, e.g., 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq. Guillory’s conclusional references to
the Civil Rights Act, are not, without more, sufficient to
establish federal jurisdiction. See Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451,
453 (5th Cir. 1996). Guillory has not established diversity
jurisdiction because he has not established complete diversity.
See Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the district court’s order granting the
defendants’ motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED.