Darryl Dean v. City of New Orleans
544 F. App'x 353
5th Cir.2013Background
- Dean, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his claims against the City of New Orleans.
- SBA declined to extend Dean’s temporary paralegal appointment after learning he lied about City of New Orleans termination.
- Dean’s administrative claim against the SBA was denied and EEOC affirmed; Dean sued the SBA and the City; the City’s claims were severed and transferred to EDLA.
- The district court dismissed on the pleadings and Dean’s contempt motion was denied.
- The district court and this court address transfer propriety, Rule 12(c) dismissal standards, and various statute-of-limitations and statutory-claim issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to EDLA was proper. | Dean argues improper forum for his claims. | District court had broad discretion; EDLA was appropriate since the City’s department isn’t in NDTX. | Transfer proper. |
| Whether Rule 12(c) dismissal was proper. | Dean asserts valid claims survive the pleadings. | Claims fail as a matter of law. | affirmed; claims dismissed. |
| Whether federal claims are time-barred. | Claims timely; tolling not shown. | Claims barred by statute; accrual and tolling not demonstrated. | Time-barred for §1983, USERRA, Title VII/ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. |
| Whether Privacy Act, HIPAA, perjury, and 10 U.S.C. §12304 claims have merit. | Dean asserts privacy, HIPAA, and related statutory claims. | No private HIPAA action; no perjury or §12304 relief. | Claims rejected; no cognizable relief. |
| Whether state-law claims should be dismissed. | State-law claims preserved. | Court should dismiss. | State-law claims affirmed dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam brief consideration of transfers)
- Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1998) (time-bar for §1983 claims)
- Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2001) (Rule 12(c) de novo review; standard for dismissal)
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (no private HIPAA action)
- Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 1996) (privacy act applicability)
- Middleton v. City of Chi., 578 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2009) (statute of limitations considerations for USERRA)
- Lee v. Acme, Not applicable (-) ((placeholder to indicate additional cited case if needed))