Kriegel v. USA, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 05-10379
Summary Calendar
LAURANCE KRIEGEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; FARM SERVICE AGENCY
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
5:04-CV-132
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant, Kriegel, has had a long standing dispute (since
1986) with the United States Department of Agriculture, the Small
Business Administration and related agencies of the United States.
This is the second suit he filed seeking relief. These disputes
are related inter alia to denied loan applications from Farmer’s

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Home Administration and the Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service along with perceived failures to properly
service his loans. Kriegel also challenged the Small Business
Administration’s offset of Kriegel’s farm program payments against
sums owed the Small Business Administration. Kriegel sued in tort
and contract and also pursued an administrative claim against some
or all of these agencies. The district court found that Kriegel’s
request for declaratory judgment, relief for breach of contract,
violation of his constitutional rights, civil conspiracy and tort
claims were all barred by statutory limitation. Because Kriegel
did not bring his action timely as required by the relevant statute
waving sovereign immunity, the court concluded it had no
jurisdiction over his claims.
As to the review of the administrative determination rejecting
Kriegel’s §741 discrimination claims, the district court determined
that Kriegel alleged no facts to show any basis for the alleged
discrimination and therefore his complaint failed to state an
actionable §741 claim.
Appellant’s brief addresses the merits of his long standing
controversy with the governmental agencies he sued. He fails to
address in any coherent way the reasons the district court
dismissed his claims.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in
its comprehensive order of January 26, 2005 we affirm the district
court judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --