### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30498 Summary Calendar

KELVIN WELLS; KELDA P R ICE WELLS; AARON WELLS; BETHANY WELLS; PATRICK WELLS, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OF LOUISIANA; MARILYN P. L E U FROY; PUBLIC PROTECTION DIVISION; DARRELL BERRY, Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:10-CV-376

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellants (Wells) a p p e al the district court’s judgment granting the appellees ’ m o tion to dismiss their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Well s s o u gh t relief under the Freedom of I nformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq.; the Louisiana Equal Housing Opportunity Act (La. Act), La. R.S. 51:2601, et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 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 March 22 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish 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 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30498 Document: 00511797484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-30498

1968. The district court also dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In the district court, Wells sought th e e nforcement of immigration laws. This claim is abandoned on appeal due to Wells’s failure to adequately brief it. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, because Wells did not provide any argument o r l e gal authority to support his conclusional arguments concerning an alleged denial of equal protection and due proces s , those issues are also abandoned. See id

. The district court’s dismissal was based on the complaint be i n g b oth frivolous and failing to s t at e a claim upon which relief could be granted; thus,

our review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 ( 5th Cir. 2005); Velasquez v. Woods , 329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 200 3). In this court, Wells contends that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar

a c l ai m a gainst state officials who deprive citizens of their federal rights and th at the defendants violated his rights as an African-American by failing to investigate his claims of racial discrimination. Although Wells characterizes his complaints as violations of federal rights, his all e g ations reflect that he is complaining about state officers’ failure to comply with their duties under state law. Because he is alleging non-compliance with state laws, Wells’s claim does not fall within any exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity; the Eleventh Amendment bars Wells from seeking prospective injunctive as well as monetary relief from the defendants in their official ca p acities. McKinley v. Abbott , 643 F.3d 403, 405-06 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 1 3 2 S. Ct. 825 (2011); see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Wells’s argument that the appellees refused to provide copies of investigatory documents in violation of the FOIA fails to state a claim because those federal provisions apply only to doc u m e nts under the control of federal agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. With respect to Wells’s contention that the district court erroneously ref u s e d discovery, there was no error because discovery

2 Case: 11-30498 Document: 00511797484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-30498

generally is not allowed until the resolution of immunity issues in the case. See Nieto v. San Perlita Indep. Sch. Dist. , 894 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 199 0). Wells contends that the appellees are liable in their person al capacity because they failed to investigate the complaints of African-Americans who are subjected to hate crimes and criminal activity. Because the defense of qualified immunity was raised, there is no liability unless Wells has shown that “taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right.” See Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., Tex. , 560 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Wells has not made the required showing. The La. Act is subst a nti ally equivalent to the federal housing act and makes it unlawful t o racially discriminate against any person in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.; La. R.S. 51:26 0 1 , e t seq., especially § 51:2606. Wells’s factual allegations were not sufficient to state a claim that the appellees

c onducted the investigation of the complaints with racially discriminatory intent. Cf. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. , 429 U.S. 252, 270 (19 7 7). Wells has failed to allege facts supporting a claim that the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights to be free of racial discrimination in housing. See Lytle, 560 F.3d at 410. Further, Wells’s claims have no arguable merit and, thus, were also properly dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e). Kelvin Wells did not appeal the distric t c o u rt’s judgment awarding the
appe ll e es attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the ruling. See F E D . R. AP P . P. 3(a); Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in a civil case.). Counsel for the appellees are directed to file a motion seeking any attorneys’ fees and costs arising out of this appeal.

3 Case: 11-30498 Document: 00511797484 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-30498

Wells’s appeal is without arguable merit, s e e H o w a rd v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and it is frivolous; accordingly, it is dismissed. See 5 T H C I R

. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.

4 Case: 11-30498 Document: 00511797484 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2012