Vernon v. Lark

── Vernon v. Lark ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: Private Civil Federal Case: 25-30717 Document: 34-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30717 FILED Summary Calendar May 11, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jimmy Lee Vernon, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Earnestine Lark, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:25-CV-1415 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jimmy Lee Vernon, Jr., California prisoner # P48706, appeals the dismissal, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), of his civil action against Earnestine Lark, stemming from the Louisiana succession of his late father’s _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30717 Document: 34-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 No. 25-30717 estate. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm. See Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS Emps., 164 F.3d 936, 941 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Vernon’s suit. Vernon’s complaint did not plead a right to recover under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; La. Indep. Pharmacies Ass’n v. Express Scripts, Inc., 41 F.4th 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2022), and the record establishes that at the time Vernon filed his complaint, both he and Lark were citizens of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Storey Mountain, L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 159 F.4th 294, 295 (5th Cir. 2025). As such, this case presents neither a federal question nor diverse parties. And Vernon cites no authority, nor are we aware of any, predicating state citizenship, for jurisdiction purposes, on a party’s being the executor for a decedent resident in the state. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir. 1990). Because the requirements for subject- matter jurisdiction were not met, Vernon’s reliance on Akin v. Louisiana National Bank of Baton Rouge, 322 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1963), is misplaced. The judgment is AFFIRMED. 2