### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30493 Summary Calendar

ORA PRICE; LEONARD PRICE; DARRYL PRICE, Plaintiffs - Appellants

v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CALISH JOLLA, personally and in her official capacity as site manager fo r I n t e r state Realty Management; CONNIE ABDUL, personally a n d i n h er official capacity as social worker for Interstate Realty Management; MICHEALS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:11-cv-00114-CJB-JCW

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs-appellants allege that the district court committed rev e r s ible

error when it denied their motion for a declar atory judgment and granted the defendants-a p p e l l e e s’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Finding no error, we affirm. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 1, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30493 Document: 00511743665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2012No. 11-30493

Appellant Ora Price is a resident of the Desir e P ub l ic Housing Development project in New Orleans, Louisiana. In Decembe r 2 0 1 0 , a gunrelated incident involving her grandson, Leroy Price, occurred on the premises. Two days later Price received a notice of infraction. At the subsequent hearing defendants-appellees accused Price of, inter alia , disturbing ot h e r residents’
peace, damaging residence property, and failing to prevent a person under her control from engaging in crimina l a c t ivity on the premises, in violation of her lease agreement. On January 4, 2011, Price received a notice of termination of her lease, and a notice to vacate by February 4. Proceeding pro se , appellants filed a complaint with jury demand on January 21, 2011, alleging “defendants have violated [plaintiffs’] constitutional and civil rights under the U.S. Constitution” and federal law, and t h a t the district court had fe d eral question jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Ten d ay s l ater, they filed an “Ex Parte and Urgent Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and in Due C o u rse Permanent Injunction, and R e s t r ai ning Order” to prevent appellees from initiating any eviction proceedings against them. The di s t rict court denied that motion, concluding that “although they are anticipated shortly, no eviction proceedings have be e n i n itiated at this time....Thus, the Court does not find that there are any federal constitutional issues to be resolved at this time, and Plaintiffs have not met the standard for obtaining declaratory or other injunctive relief.” On April 5, 2011, appellees filed a motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). The district court granted the motion, and appellants timely filed a notice of appeal with this court. This court reviews a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim de n o vo . A claim may be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to allege 1

Am ac kerv . Rena is sa nceAsse t M gmt, LLC, 657 F.3d252 , 254 (5t h Cir

. 2011)

. 1 2 Case: 11-30493 Document: 00511743665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2012No. 11-30493

s u f f i c i ent facts that, taken as true, state a claim that is plausible on its face. 2 We agree with the district court’s conclusion that appellants failed to meet this burden. Although they allege in general terms that appellees have violated fed e r al l a w and their constitutional rights, they do not present any facts that would support these claims. Consequ e n t l y , the district court did not err in dismissing their complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court also dism i ssed the appellants’ action for a declaratory judgment. Because appellants failed to state a cla i m f o r w h i c h relief may be granted, the district court did not err in dismissing their request for a declaratory judgment. As the district court noted, if a n d when eviction 3 proceedings actually come to pass in this case, the appe ll a nts will have the “opportunity to contest those proceedings in state court.” For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint and action for a declaratory judgment.

He rsh ey v. Ene rgy Tra nsf er Partne rs, LP, 610 F.3d239 , 245 (5t h Cir

. 2010)

. 2
See Va l- Com Ac quis iti ons Tr u s t v. Chas e Ho me Fina nce, LLC, 434 Fed. App

. 395, 3 395–96 (5th Cir201 1). 3 Case: 11-30493 Document: 00511743665 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2012