* Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30089

Summary Calendar

_____________________

C. H. FAULKENBERRY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

DAVID L. SMITH, as assignee

of the interest of Plaintiff,

C. H. Faulkenberry, Jr.,

Movant-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ELKINS, BENEFITS SYSTEMS INC.,

and MICROBE MASTER, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Louisiana

(85-CV-146)

_______________________________________________________

December 20, 1996

Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Smith complains of the denial of his motion to revive

a 1986 judgment. We affirm.
2

On January 3, 1986, the United States District Court, Middle

District of Louisiana entered a consent judgment (civil action

number 85-146-B-1) in the amount of $30,000 in favor of plaintiff

C.H. Faulkenberry, Jr. and against defendants John W. Elkins,

Benefit Systems, Inc. and Microbe Masters, Inc. 

David Smith claims an interest in the judgment as assignee

from the sole heir of C.H. Faulkenberry, Jr. and now seeks

revival of the January 1986 judgment against International

Biochemicals Group (IBG), as corporate successor to Microbe

Masters.

Appellant Smith moved the court below to be substituted as

party plaintiff for the purpose of reviving the January 3, 1986

judgment, and to revive judgment. The District Court denied both

motions. Smith then requested that IBG be served and ordered to

appear and show cause as to why a writ of execution/fieri facias

should not issue in its name. The District Court denied this

motion, instructing appellant that he could file a separate

action in the proper court, but refusing to reopen civil action

85-146-B-1.

Our only issue is whether the district court erred in

denying the Motion to Revive Judgment filed by David Smith, and

in denying the Motion to Substitute David L. Smith for original

plaintiff Faulkenberry for the purpose of reviving the 1986

judgment. In its orders, the court questioned its jurisdiction

to grant the revival and the substitution of parties. 
3

Revival of a federal court judgment follows the procedural

law of the forum state. Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a). Urban Resorts Group

v. Wheeler, No. 82-2470, 1996 WL 28507, 1 (E.D.La.1/22/96). 

Under Louisiana law, a money judgment may be revived by an

“ordinary proceeding” brought in the court which rendered the

original judgment. La. Code of Civ. Proc. Art. 2031. 

Smith contends his motion to revive civil action number 85-

146-B-1 qualifies as an ordinary proceeding, and that

Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b), abolishing the writ of scire facias, but not

the relief available under such a writ, allows for revival of

judgments by motion where the district court has already acquired

jurisdiction. Louisiana courts have held that revival of

judgment under Article 2031 requires the filing of a suit in

ordinary proceedings. Mouton v. Watson, 500 So.2d 792 (La.App.1

Cir. 1986), Master Credit Plan, Inc. v. Angelo, 437 So.2d 1201

(La.App.5 Cir. 1983), Bahan v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company,

191 So.2d 668,671 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1966) citing Cassiere v. Cuban

Coffee Mills, 74 So.2d 193 (La. 1954), 

The district court could not look to the original record of

civil action number 85-146-B-1, to determine jurisdiction over

Smith or IBG. The court correctly questioned its jurisdiction to

grant the order in the manner presented, and dismissed the motion

to revive, reserving to the movant the right to refile.

Affirmed.