Filed: Oct. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-31114 Conference Calendar BARBARA COLEMAN FENELON, Plaintiff-Appellant, LAW & GRACE INC., Appellant, versus CAROL BYRD; CHERYL BORNE; REBECCA BROWN, JESSIE LEPREE; KEETON MARKS; KENNETH TAYLOR; BARRY ANDERSON; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-1052-E - October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-31114 Conference Calendar BARBARA COLEMAN FENELON, Plaintiff-Appellant, LAW & GRACE INC., Appellant, versus CAROL BYRD; CHERYL BORNE; REBECCA BROWN, JESSIE LEPREE; KEETON MARKS; KENNETH TAYLOR; BARRY ANDERSON; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-1052-E - October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31114
Conference Calendar
BARBARA COLEMAN FENELON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
LAW & GRACE INC.,
Appellant,
versus
CAROL BYRD; CHERYL BORNE; REBECCA BROWN, JESSIE LEPREE;
KEETON MARKS; KENNETH TAYLOR; BARRY ANDERSON;
UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1052-E
--------------------
October 18, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barbara Ann Coleman Fenelon, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of her civil rights action. Fenelon
argues that the district court erred in dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985(3) claim of a conspiracy to violate her civil rights.
Fenelon’s claim is based on allegations that the defendants have
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-31114
- 2 -
conspired against her on the basis of racial and religious
discrimination. There is no claim under § 1985(3) for religious
discrimination. Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church, Inc.
v. Sawyer,
90 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 1996). Fenelon has never
alleged that the defendants discriminate against black people as
a class. Fenelon alleged only that the discrimination was
against her personally, for the religious views she expressed in
her book.
Furthermore, § 1985(3) requires an allegation that the
object of the conspiracy was to deprive the plaintiff of a right
guaranteed to United States citizens under the law. Word of
Faith, 90 F.3d at 124. Although Fenelon uses the code words
“equal protection” and “equal rights”, she does not identify of
which specific right the defendants allegedly conspired to
deprive her. There is no constitutionally protected right to
have one's book sold at a Baptist bookstore, nor is there any
constitutionally protected right to membership in a particular
church or religious group.
The district court did not err in dismissing Fenelon’s
§ 1985(3) conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim. Fenelon
does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of her other
claims, and so they are considered abandoned. See Yohey v.
Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Fenelon argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying her motion to amend her complaint filed after final
judgment in conjunction with her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
vacate the judgment. She contends that she could not have raised
No. 99-31114
- 3 -
her RICO and antitrust claims earlier because she was denied the
opportunity to conduct discovery.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Fenelon’s motions to vacate and amend after final judgment had
been entered, to amend her complaint to add new claims. See
Rourke v. Thompson,
11 F.3d 47, 51 (5th Cir. 1993). As the
district court correctly determined, the alleged new evidence did
not add anything to her claims as already pleaded and did not
form the basis of any newly discovered claims that could not have
been pleaded earlier.
Fenelon’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
The appeal of Law & Grace, Inc., Fenelon’s business, is
DISMISSED because it is not represented by counsel. See In re
K.M.A., Inc.,
652 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1981).