Chambers v. Picard

Fifth Circuit

Chambers v. Picard

86 F. App'x 705

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

Docket03-30642

StatusUnpublished

This text of 86 F. App'x 705 (Chambers v. Picard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Picard, 86 F. App'x 705 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

The instant suit was filed by several individuals associated with the Second Chance Academy. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court likewise denied the plaintiffs’ postjudgment motion for new trial. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s denial of their post-judgment motion. They also move this court to supplement the record on appeal.

We first note that there is an issue concerning which plaintiffs filed a valid notice of appeal. However, we pretermit this jurisdictional question because this appeal lacks merit. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1992).

The plaintiffs challenge the district court’s denial of their postjudgment motion. They do not dispute the district court’s characterization of this motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion for new trial, nor do they challenge the district court’s reasons for denying the motion. Rather, they argue only that they were at an unfair disadvantage in the district court because they lacked counsel. This argument is unavailing. The denial of a motion for new trial is not appealable. See Osterberger v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp., 921 F.2d 72, 73 (5th Cir.1991); Youmans v. Simon, 791 F.2d 341, 349 (5th Cir.1986). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ argument concerning their lack of counsel shows no error in the underlying judgment dismissing their suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Osterberger, 921 F.2d at 73. To the extent that the plaintiffs attempt to raise several new issues for the first time in their reply brief, we decline to consider these issues. See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. *707 1989). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion to supplement is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

The instant suit was filed by several individuals associated with the Second Chance Academy. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court likewise denied the plaintiffs’ postjudgment motion for new trial. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s denial of their post-judgment motion. They also move this court to supplement the record on appeal.

We first note that there is an issue concerning which plaintiffs filed a valid notice of appeal. However, we pretermit this jurisdictional question because this appeal lacks merit. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1992).

The plaintiffs challenge the district court’s denial of their postjudgment motion. They do not dispute the district court’s characterization of this motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion for new trial, nor do they challenge the district court’s reasons for denying the motion. Rather, they argue only that they were at an unfair disadvantage in the district court because they lacked counsel. This argument is unavailing. The denial of a motion for new trial is not appealable. See Osterberger v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp., 921 F.2d 72, 73 (5th Cir.1991); Youmans v. Simon, 791 F.2d 341, 349 (5th Cir.1986). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ argument concerning their lack of counsel shows no error in the underlying judgment dismissing their suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Osterberger, 921 F.2d at 73. To the extent that the plaintiffs attempt to raise several new issues for the first time in their reply brief, we decline to consider these issues. See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. *707 1989). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion to supplement is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. App'x 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-picard-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack