Louis McCasland, Jr., et al v. City of Castroville, No. 11-51154 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-51154 Document: 00511889527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-51154 Summary Calendar June 18, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LOUIS P. MCCASLAND, JR.; JOAN T. MCCASLAND; CASTROVILLE AIRPORT, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF CASTROVILLE, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CV-506 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court granted the City of Castroville s motion to dismiss the claims in plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, and plaintiffs now appeal that judgment. The City s motion raised as grounds for dismissal a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), and plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The court found that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-51154 Document: 00511889527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2012 No. 11-51154 relief may be granted and dismissed their claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). In light of that conclusion, the court believed that it need not consider the City s arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction. When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, however, courts must consider the jurisdictional challenge first.1 Doing so prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice. 2 That concern is implicated here, and so, without expressing a view on the district court s Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, we vacate the district court s judgment granting the City s Second Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the plaintiffs claims with prejudice, and we remand for consideration of the City s jurisdictional arguments and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 See Wolcott v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011); Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994). 2 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); accord Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
