Nall v. Strain

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-30212
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-30212 Document: 39-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30212 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 17, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Johnathan Lee Nall, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Jack Strain, Sheriff; Deputy Schoolcraft; St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office, Individually and in their official capacity,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:23-CV-5197 ______________________________

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Johnathan Lee Nall filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s office, former Sheriff Jack Strain, and Deputy Schoolcraft. The district court dismissed with prejudice the complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for several reasons, including that the § 1983 claims had prescribed under the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30212 Document: 39-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2025

No. 25-30212

one-year Louisiana statute of limitations. Nall did not appeal, but he filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) arguing, in pertinent part, that his § 1983 action had not prescribed based on the Louisiana doctrine of contra non valentem. The district court denied relief. We review the denial of relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir. 1992); Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). In his Rule 60(b) motion, Nall asserted no more than a possible error of law that should have been raised on appeal. See Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, 695 (5th Cir. 1983); Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir. 1977). He has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief. AFFIRMED.