ANTONIO FRERE Plaintiff DERRICK GERARD FINISTER v. Harry Lee, individually and in his official capacity as Jefferson Parish Sheriff

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-30356
_____________________
ANTONIO FRERE
Plaintiff
DERRICK GERARD FINISTER
Intervenor - Appellee
v.
HARRY LEE, individually and in his official
capacity as Jefferson Parish Sheriff
Defendant - Appellant
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
99-CV-601-C
_________________________________________________________________
April 3, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Harry Lee, the Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish, appeals the district court’s decision on February 14,
2001, to hold Sheriff Lee in civil contempt for failing to post a

-- 1 of 3 --

2
supersedeas bond and to assess a fine in the amount of the
attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Intervenor-Appellee Derrick
Gerard Finister to enforce a judgment that he had recovered
against Sheriff Lee. Sheriff Lee also appeals the judgment for
attorney’s fees and costs entered March 12, 2001 pursuant to that
decision. We reverse the decision holding Sheriff Lee in civil
contempt and the judgment for attorney’s fees and costs.
Reading the district court’s ruling entered on March 16,
2000, on Sheriff Lee’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Judgment
Without the Necessity of Posting a Supersedeas Bond Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 objectively and in the context in which it was
rendered, the motion was denied and Sheriff Lee was ordered to
post a bond of $375,000 within 21 days if he wanted to stay
enforcement of the judgment during the pendency of his appeal of
the judgment. This reading of the ruling is reinforced by the
fact that there was no pending motion by Finister to order
Sheriff Lee to post a bond, nor do we perceive any basis on which
such a motion could have been filed. Accordingly, Sheriff Lee’s
failure to post the bond meant that Finister could have executed
on the judgment at any time during the pendency of the appeal,
but it did not, under these circumstances, breach the district
court’s order.
There may be other bases on which the fees and costs
incurred by Finister in enforcing his judgment are recoverable,
but we leave that to the district court on remand.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The district court’s decision to hold Sheriff Lee in civil
contempt and the district court’s judgment for attorney’s fees
and costs are REVERSED and the case is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings. Costs shall be borne by Finister.

-- 3 of 3 --