Dion v. Apache Corporation, et al

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-30785
_______________________
PAUL JESSIE DION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
APACHE CORPORATION and
APACHE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Civil Docket #99-CV-3575-B
_________________________________________________________________
May 15, 2001
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Dion challenges the district court’s dismissal
of that portion of his claims against appellees which he asserted
under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The court held that
Dion failed to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction and
failed to state a claim under admiralty, thus requiring dismissal

-- 1 of 3 --

1Some of the confusion surrounding interpretation of
appellant’s claims stems from the fact that discovery materials and
uncontested facts were offered by appellant in support of his
pleading, though he never tried to amend.
2
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and 2(b)(6). We must
reverse and remand.
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) authorize dismissal on the
pleadings only if it appears certain that a plaintiff can prove no
set of facts supporting his claim that would entitle him to relief.
Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143
F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). While appellant’s pleadings are
sketchy, he asserted, according to the district court, that
appellees were negligent in their capacity as charterer of the
wireline vessel, and this negligence proximately caused his
injury.1 As a seaman, he also asserts jurisdiction under the
Admiralty Extension Act.
The facts recited in Dion’s brief to this court, facts
extrinsic to his complaint, provide little ultimate support for a
successful admiralty claim. But they are the facts-developed
through earlier discovery and not the pleadings, on which this
dismissal was predicated. We cannot sua sponte grant summary
judgment here, and are empowered only to address the dismissal on
the pleadings on that narrow issue. Dion’s claims, as pled and
liberally interpreted, sound in admiralty.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Although his instinct of the case may be sound, the
district court erred in dismissing the complaint on the pleadings.
The case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --