James Taggart v. City of Grand Prairie

Fifth Circuit

James Taggart v. City of Grand Prairie

421 F.2d 1301, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11098

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1970

Docket28171_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 1301 (James Taggart v. City of Grand Prairie) 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

James Taggart v. City of Grand Prairie, 421 F.2d 1301, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11098 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After a pretrial hearing, the District Court dismissed this matter on defendant’s motion, for lack of jurisdiction and failure of plaintiffs to state a claim presenting a substantial federal question. We affirm.

The complaint for injunctive relief is a vague, many-pronged action, termed a class action, and brought by four citizens of the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, “who object to the abusive use of police power and the unconstitutionality of various and numerous acts of the City of Grand Prairie” against them. They request that a three-judge court be convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. The pleadings allege generally that appellee has interfered with the ability of plaintiffs to “make a living,” and they also allege deprivation of property and property rights, all in violation of plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, especially Amendments 1 through 15 of the United States Constitution. They seek to restrain the enforcement of city ordinances (not named or numbered) relating to health, maintenance of inoperative automobiles, pasturing of horses, and refusal to permit repairs to their dwellings. It is apparent from the allegations that appellants were deprived of no federally protected right. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97, 87 S.Ct. 1544, 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (1967); Anderson v. Tensaw Land & Timber Company, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 855; Kinney v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 123. Any rights which appellants might have can be adequately determined by state law. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

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

PER CURIAM:

After a pretrial hearing, the District Court dismissed this matter on defendant’s motion, for lack of jurisdiction and failure of plaintiffs to state a claim presenting a substantial federal question. We affirm.

The complaint for injunctive relief is a vague, many-pronged action, termed a class action, and brought by four citizens of the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, “who object to the abusive use of police power and the unconstitutionality of various and numerous acts of the City of Grand Prairie” against them. They request that a three-judge court be convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. The pleadings allege generally that appellee has interfered with the ability of plaintiffs to “make a living,” and they also allege deprivation of property and property rights, all in violation of plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, especially Amendments 1 through 15 of the United States Constitution. They seek to restrain the enforcement of city ordinances (not named or numbered) relating to health, maintenance of inoperative automobiles, pasturing of horses, and refusal to permit repairs to their dwellings. It is apparent from the allegations that appellants were deprived of no federally protected right. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97, 87 S.Ct. 1544, 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (1967); Anderson v. Tensaw Land & Timber Company, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 855; Kinney v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 123. Any rights which appellants might have can be adequately determined by state law. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 F.2d 1301, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-taggart-v-city-of-grand-prairie-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack