PERRY v. CHRISTIAN CEO CEO CEO CEO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Lee PERRY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Wayne CHRISTIAN, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas; Andrew Wheeler, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Sonny Purdue, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture; American Petroleum Institute; David a Scott, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Oil; Gas Board of Mississippi; Marathon Oil Company, Lee Tillman, CEO; Hilcorp Energy Company; Conocophillips Corporation, Ryan M. Lance, CEO; Rhonda Hamilton, in her Official Capacity as President of Bill Hill Oil Gas Company; Michael Sommers, CEO; Ryan Lance, Ryan M. Lance; Greg Lalicker, CEO, Hilcorp Energy Company, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 20-20277

Decided: May 03, 2021

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Lee Perry, Pro Se Jimmy Anthony Rodriguez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Michael S. Regan, Sonny Purdue Michael C. Falick, I, Rothfelder & Falick, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees American Petroleum Institute, Michael Sommers James Stephen Barrick, Litigation Counsel, Gregg C. Laswell, Esq., Hicks Thomas, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Hilcorp Energy Company, Greg Lalicker Craig L. Stahl, Jeffrey Todd Kuehnle, Ryan Philip Pitts, Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees ConocoPhillips Corporation, Ryan M. Lance Michael Edward Starr, Stayton Lugene Worthington, Esq., Coghlan Crowson, L.L.P., Longview, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Rhonda Hamilton

Lee Perry filed suit against numerous governmental and non-governmental entities. He alleged violations of the United States Constitution and various federal statutes, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, the Safe Water Drinking Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on the defendants’ alleged involvement in a conspiracy to deprive African American descendants of slaves of their interests in fifteen million acres of land and mineral rights across the United States. In orders dated February 11, April 27, and April 28, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice all of Perry's claims against all defendants. In addition to the district court's orders, we have considered the pleadings, exhibits, and briefs in this case. For the reasons articulated below, we AFFIRM.

Perry raises two points of error on appeal: (1) that the district court violated his right to due process by dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, and (2) the district court violated his right to due process by dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Perry's first argument on appeal is without merit. He asserts that the district court violated his due process right by dismissing his claims against certain defendants with prejudice before he had the opportunity to amend his pleading. The timeline of motions filed at the district court shows otherwise. The district court allowed Perry to file an amended complaint and considered it before granting the relevant motion to dismiss.

Perry's second argument on appeal is also without factual basis. He asserts that the district court violated his due process rights by dismissing certain defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without affording him a reasonable opportunity to respond. Again, the record demonstrates otherwise. The district court ruled after Perry's time to file a response had expired.

In sum, Perry has failed to allege specific facts sufficient to show that he suffered any cognizable injury. See Perry v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 668 F. App'x 123 (5th Cir. 2016). We AFFIRM the dismissal of this case.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network