United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30423
Summary Calendar
PATRICIA EVANS; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
PATRICIA EVANS; AUTHURINE BRISBON
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ET AL,
Defendants,
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS; CARMEN F. VALENTI, Housing
Authority of New Orleans Board of Commissioners; CATHERINE D.
LAMBERG, Administrative Receiver; CYNTHIA WIGGINS, Resident
Advisor to the Board,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No.03-CV-2411
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, plaintiffs Patricia Evans and Authurine
Brison appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim against
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50026
-2-
the Housing Authority of New Orleans (“HANO”), and HANO employees
Mr. Carmen F. Valenti, Ms. Catherine Lamberg, and Ms. Cynthia
Wiggins. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their
constitutional rights by building and operating their subsidized
housing on a waste site, thus creating horrible living conditions,
and “retaliating” against plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs’
original complaint did not cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district
court construed their pro se compliant liberally and found that
their allegations might be construed as being brought under § 1983.
The district court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend
their complaint against Mr. Carmen F. Valenti, Ms. Catherine
Lamberg and Ms. Cynthia Wiggins, all employees of the Housing
Authority of New Orleans, to plead facts sufficient to overcome
their defense of qualified immunity. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d
1427 (5th Cir. 1995). After considering all of plaintiffs’
subsequent filings the district court found that plaintiffs had not
pleaded facts sufficient to make out such a claim, or any other
federal claim, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.
Upon a review of the record we find that plaintiffs have not
alleged facts sufficient to establish any federal cause of action
and the district court therefore properly dismissed their claims.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.