Filed: Oct. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60071 Summary Calendar ERIC JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DIANE PARKER, Executrix of the Estate of Barry Parker, deceased, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:96-CV-1-P-A - Before: BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CUR
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60071 Summary Calendar ERIC JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DIANE PARKER, Executrix of the Estate of Barry Parker, deceased, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:96-CV-1-P-A - Before: BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURI..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60071
Summary Calendar
ERIC JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DIANE PARKER, Executrix of the Estate of Barry Parker, deceased,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:96-CV-1-P-A
--------------------
Before: BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eric Jones, Mississippi prisoner # 45265, appeals from the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis that the
estate of Barry Parker has been closed and lacks assets from
which Jones may recover damages. The ability of a plaintiff to
recover under state law does not determine whether the
plaintiff’s action may proceed in federal court. Ransom v.
Brennan,
437 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir. 1971). Moreover, it is
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
unclear whether Jones is precluded from reopening the estate and
recovering damages should he prevail on his substantive claims.
See Smith v. Estate of King,
501 So. 2d 1120, 1122-23 (Miss.
1987); Powell v. Buchanan,
147 So. 2d 110, 111-12 (Miss. 1962).
VACATED AND REMANDED.