United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30335

Ariyan, Incorporated, doing business as Discount Corner; M. 

Langenstein & Sons, Incorporated; Prytania Liquor 

Store, Incorporated; West Prytania, Incorporated, doing 

business as Prytania Mail Service/Barbara West; British 

Antiques, L.L.C., Bennet Powell; Arlen Brunson; 

Kristina Dupre; Brett Dupre; Gail Marie Hatcher; 

Betty Price; Et Al., 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans; Ghassan 

Korban, In his Capacity as Executive Director of Sewerage & Water 

Board of New Orleans, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:21-CV-534

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs who succeed in winning a money judgment against a state 

governmental entity in state court in Louisiana often find themselves in a 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

2

frustrating situation. Though they have obtained a favorable judgment, they 

lack the means to enforce it. The Louisiana Constitution bars the seizure of 

public funds or property to satisfy a judgment against the state or its political 

subdivisions. La. Const. art. XII, § 10(c). Instead, the Legislature or the 

political subdivision must make a specific appropriation in order to satisfy the

judgment. Id.; La. R.S. 13:5109. And since Louisiana courts lack the power to 

force another branch of government to make an appropriation, the prevailing 

plaintiff has no judicial mechanism to compel the defendant to pay. See 

Newman Marchive P’ship, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 979 So. 2d 1262, 1265 (La. 

2008). The “plaintiff who succeeds in an action against a governmental unit 

thus becomes a supplicant,” relying on the grace of the government to 

appropriate funds to satisfy her judgment. David W. Robertson, Tort Liability 

of Governmental Units in Louisiana, 64 Tul. L. Rev. 857, 881 (1990).

Finding themselves in this position, the Plaintiffs in this case, like

others before them, have turned to the federal courts to force payment on 

their state court judgment. They claim that the Defendants’ failure to timely 

satisfy a state court judgment violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

applying long-standing precedent that there is no property right to timely 

payment on a judgment. 

We agree and AFFIRM.

I.

In 2013, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Sewerage 

and Water Board of New Orleans (the “SWB”) began construction on a 

massive flood control project across Uptown New Orleans as part of the 

Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Program (“SELA”). The Uptown 

phase involved the construction of underground box culverts that run the 

length of several major thoroughfares. Plaintiffs are seventy landowners, 

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

3

including both businesses and private homeowners, who suffered property 

damage and economic loss as the result of SELA construction. The Plaintiffs 

filed suit in state court and obtained final judgments against the SWB for a 

combined $10.5 million. Some of these judgments became final in early 2018 

and 2019, others as recently as fall 2020.

As of January 2021, though, the Plaintiffs had not received any 

payment from the SWB. So, in March 2021 they filed a § 1983 suit in district 

court under the theory that the SWB’s failure to comply with the state court 

judgments “creates a secondary Constitutional violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth 

Amendment rights,” more specifically a violation of their due process rights 

and their rights to just compensation for a taking. As relief, the Plaintiffs 

requested a writ of execution seizing the SWB’s property in order to satisfy 

the judgments. Separately, the Plaintiffs’ complaint sought a declaration that 

the SWB is contractually obligated to seek reimbursement from the Army 

Corps for the judgments via a procedure the two entities agreed to, called the 

“Damages SOP.”

The SWB filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the 

district court granted it. The court sympathized with the Plaintiffs’ 

frustrations, but noted that there were “centuries of precedent” establishing 

that a state’s failure to timely pay a state court judgment did not violate any

federal constitutional right. With no underlying constitutional right at issue, 

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim was “legally baseless.” The district court also 

declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief 

as a standalone claim, citing the “particularly local nature of this dispute.”

Finally, the court denied Plaintiffs’ generic request to amend their complaint

should a failure to state a claim be found, holding that any amendment would 

be futile. Plaintiffs appealed.

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

4

II.

We review dismissal of a case under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting 

all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Allen v. Walmart Stores, L.L.C., 907 F.3d 170, 177 

(5th Cir. 2018). “In the context of a 12(b)(6) motion in a section 1983 suit, 

the focus should be whether the complaint properly sets forth a claim of a 

deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

or laws of the United States caused by persons acting under color of state law. 

If there is no deprivation of any protected right the claim is properly 

dismissed.” S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. Supreme Ct. of State of La., 252 

F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). 

Ordinarily a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint 

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 

F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 2000). However, when denial is based on the futility 

of amendment, we “apply the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies 

under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. at 873 (citation omitted). If the complaint, as 

amended, would be subject to dismissal, then amendment is futile and the 

district court was within its discretion to deny leave to amend. Id.

III.

A.

The Plaintiffs’ claim is fairly discrete. They “do not seek to re-litigate 

the legal or factual issues or compensation awards decided in the state 

courts.” Rather, their case “concerns an independent Takings Clause 

violation—the failure to timely pay just compensation once the 

compensation was determined and awarded.” This nonpayment is, 

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

5

according to the Plaintiffs, a “second taking,” and the only one at issue in 

their case.1

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court decided the case of a pair 

of litigants in a similar situation as the Plaintiffs here. In Folsom v. City of New 

Orleans, 109 U.S. 285 (1883), two relators had obtained state court judgments 

against the City of New Orleans for property damage caused by riots in 1873. 

In 1879, a new state constitution limited the taxes New Orleans could levy to 

just enough to cover the City’s budget. Id. at 287. The effect was that the 

relators were prevented from collecting on their judgments. Id. The relators 

argued that this state constitutional change deprived them of property 

without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument, agreeing that the judgments were 

property, but holding that “the relators cannot be said to be deprived of them 

so long as they continue an existing liability against the city.” Id. at 289. In 

dissent, Justice Harlan wrote that an unenforceable judgment is no judgment 

at all. “Since the value of the judgment, as property, depends necessarily 

upon the remedies given for its enforcement, the withdrawal of all remedies 

for its enforcement, and compelling the owner to rely exclusively upon the 

generosity of the judgment debtor, is, I submit, to deprive the owner of his 

property.” Id. at 295.

The Folsom majority’s notion of a judgment as an “existing liability,” 

conceptually distinct from its recovery, has only been reinforced in the 

intervening years. In Minton v. St. Bernard Parish School Board, this Court, 

1 In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted a separate due process violation “because 

Defendants have treated them differently than non-litigants merely because Plaintiffs have 

exercised their constitutional right to file suit.” Plaintiffs did not argue this claim in their 

briefs before the district court or in their briefs before this Court. It is therefore deemed 

abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1993).

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

6

citing Folsom, reiterated that “the property right created by a judgment 

against a government entity is not a right to payment at a particular time but 

merely the recognition of a continuing debt of that government entity.” 803 

F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 1986). Based on that principle, we held that the 

government defendant’s “failure to appropriate funds to pay the debt to the 

Mintons does not constitute a taking in violation of the due process clause.”

Id.

Again, in Freeman Decorating Company v. Encuentro Las Americas 

Trade Corporation, our Court held that there was no Takings Clause violation 

where the City of New Orleans failed to make timely payment on a state court 

judgment because there had been no taking of any property. “[T]he only 

property right [the plaintiff] has is the recognition of City’s [sic] continuing 

debt.” 352 F. App’x 921, 924 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Guilbeau v. Par. of St. 

Landry, 341 F. App’x 974 (5th Cir. 2009); cf. Evans v. City of Chicago, 689 

F.2d 1286, 1297 n.13 (7th Cir. 1982) (distinguishing Folsom because Illinois 

Constitution created property right to immediate payment on a judgment).

In short, “[a] party cannot be said to be deprived of his property in a 

judgment because at the time he is unable to collect it.” Folsom, 109 U.S. at 

289. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claim that their property has been taken by the SWB’s

failure to timely pay must fail under Folsom.

The Plaintiffs try to get around this precedent in two ways. First, they 

argue that Folsom and its progeny are distinguishable because the underlying 

judgments in those cases sounded in state tort and contract law, while the 

Plaintiffs’ judgments are based on violations of a federal constitutional right. 

But Plaintiffs’ underlying state court cases were not based on any asserted 

federal right. As the SWB pointed out in briefing, and as the record shows, 

Plaintiffs’ state court judgments were for violations of Louisiana law, not for 

violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as the Plaintiffs have 

asserted to this Court. But even if the underlying judgments were based on 

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

7

violations of federal rights, we are not sure why that distinction would make 

a difference. After all, under Plaintiffs’ theory, the SWB’s failure to pay the 

judgments constitutes an “independent” or “second” Fifth Amendment 

taking of their property, namely the purported property right to be paid 

timely on a judgment. But since Folsom said there is no property right to

timely payment on a judgment, there must be something special about a 

judgment based on federal constitutional rights that confers this additional 

property interest for the Plaintiffs’ argument to succeed. Plaintiffs do not 

explain why the legal right underlying a judgment would create this additional

property right for some judgments and not others, and it remains unclear to 

us. It seems that a judgment compensating someone for a breach of contract 

should confer no less a property interest than a judgment compensating 

someone for the police’s excessive force.

Vogt v. Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 294 F.3d 684

(5th Cir. 2002), and Lafaye v. City of New Orleans, No. 2:20-CV-41, 2021 WL 

886118 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2021), also do not aid the Plaintiffs in escaping 

Folsom’s holding. In Vogt, the Court stated in dicta that the governmental 

defendant’s refusal to satisfy a judgment could constitute a taking. 294 F.3d 

at 697. But the judgment in that case was, in part, a declaratory judgment by 

the state courts that mineral royalties in the government defendant’s possession

were the property of the plaintiff. Id. at 688. The government’s refusal to 

“pay over the retained royalties constitutes a taking because the 

governmental entity is withholding private property from its owners.” Id. at 

697. This situation, where the judgment debtor is in possession of property 

determined to belong to the creditor, is different from a judgment wherein

the debtor owes compensation to the creditor. Lafaye turns on the exact same 

distinction. As the district court wrote in that case, “[b]oth Vogt and this case 

involve the government’s refusal to return private property to its rightful 

owner.” Lafaye, 2021 WL 886118, at *9. Plaintiffs’ judgments here are for 

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

8

compensation and damages, not for the return of private property that “the 

government has forcibly appropriated . . . without a claim of right.” Vogt, 294 

F.3d at 697.

Plaintiffs’ second argument is that two Supreme Court cases—

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson 

City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) and Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. 

Ct. 2162 (2019)—provide a federal forum for their claim. Plaintiffs 

misunderstand those cases. They are right that Knick and Williamson County

discuss when a plaintiff may file a Takings Clause claim in federal court, but 

the cases say nothing about whether failure to timely pay a state court 

judgment constitutes a taking or any other deprivation of a federal right 

actionable under § 1983. Whether a claim is ripe for federal adjudication, as 

Williamson County and Knick decided, is very different from whether certain 

facts state a claim at all. Amici’s citations to Supreme Court dicta that the 

Fifth Amendment is “self-executing” and that a property owner “acquires a 

right to compensation immediately upon an uncompensated taking” also fail 

to address the actual issue presented by Plaintiffs’ appeal, namely whether a 

government’s failure to timely pay a court judgment constitutes a taking in 

the first place. Neither Williamson County nor Knick speak to that question.

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim remains foreclosed by Folsom.

B.

Plaintiffs invoked federal question jurisdiction, relying on their Fifth 

Amendment claim, to bring this suit. With that claim dismissed, the district 

court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ separate claim for a 

declaration of the parties’ rights and duties under the Damages SOP. The 

Declaratory Judgment Act “does not of itself confer jurisdiction on the 

federal courts.” Jolly v. United States, 488 F.2d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1974). 

Without an underlying federal claim, or any other basis for jurisdiction 

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30335

9

asserted by the Plaintiffs, the district court properly declined to hear 

Plaintiffs’ standalone claim to declaratory relief.

As a final matter, the district court also properly declined to grant 

leave to Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Though Rule 15(a)’s mandate 

that leave to amend must be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires” 

significantly limits a district court’s discretion, a district court still acts within 

its bounds when it denies leave because amendment would be futile. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Futility here means “that the amended complaint 

would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Stripling, 234 

F.3d at 873. The Plaintiffs did not specify what amendments they wished to 

make, or attach an amended pleading. Rather they simply asked for leave to 

amend “if their pleadings are found to be deficient in any manner.” This 

failure to specify how amendment would cure the fundamental deficiencies 

in their pleading, especially when the core of Plaintiffs’ claims is so clearly 

foreclosed by settled law, supports the district court’s determination that 

amendment would be futile. See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 212 (5th 

Cir. 2016). We cannot say the court abused its discretion.

IV.

Like the district court, we understand the Plaintiffs’ frustration. They 

have succeeded in winning a money judgment. Without any judicial means to 

recover, they are compelled “to rely exclusively upon the generosity of the 

judgment debtor.” Folsom, 109 U.S. at 295 (Harlan, J., dissenting). But the 

Plaintiffs’ case before the district court turned entirely on a purported

property interest not recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. They 

therefore failed to state a claim for relief, and the district court properly 

dismissed their case. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Case: 21-30335 Document: 00516246287 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/21/2022