Case ID: f-appx_246/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael J. FLORES; Lee Flores, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB; James H. Robichaux; James Clancey; Jeffrey Dickersen, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-51719
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2007.
    Michael J. Flores, Floresville, TX, pro se.
    Lee Flores, Floresville, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael and Lee Flores appeal, pro se, the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a private law firm and three of its members as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir.1997). Affording the pleadings and brief the requisite liberal construction, e.g., Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995), there was no such abuse.

First, the Floreses offer no concrete assertions of a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor assert any facts to support their conclusory claim that defendants acted under the required color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); Mills v. Criminal Disk Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 678 (5th Cir.1988). In that regard, a state-law claim against the defendant attorneys for professional misconduct is not a basis for § 1983 relief. See O’Brien v. Colbath, 465 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir.1972); see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (a § 1983 complaint is not a vehicle for vindicating rights arising under state tort law). Finally, the Floreses offer no specific facts to support their claim of a conspiracy between defendants and the state court. See Young v. Biggers, 938 F.2d 565, 569 (5th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.