Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50739/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50739-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

FILED

March 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50739

Summary Calendar

 

SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III; LARRY DOUGLAS; DANIEL 

JOHNSON; TERRENCE HAZEL; JOSE RIOS; JOE L. BUSTER;

JACKIE HINKLE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

A.M. STRINGFELLOW; WILLIAM MOODY; ALFRED MORAN;

PATRICIA A. DAY; MARY BACON; DON B. JONES; JOHN

DAVID FRANZ; CAROL YOUNG; GARY JOHNSON; JANIE

COCKRELL; J.E. (JIMMY) ALFORD; DAVID STACKS;

JEREMIAH DAVIS; GARY GOMEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CV-618-JN

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel G. Newton, III, Larry Douglas, Daniel Johnson, 

Terrence Hazel, Jose Rios, Joe L. Buster, and Jackie Hinkle appeal

the dismissal of their civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §

 Case: 03-50739 Document: 0051522849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2004
No. 03-50739

-2-

1983 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing

their action because the prison policies and conditions they

challenged in their complaint violate their constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs further contend that the district court erred in

denying two motions for leave to amend their complaint and denying

a motion for class action maintainability. Plaintiffs Jose Rios

and Larry Douglas also argue that the district court erred by

severing their claims of retaliation from the instant lawsuit. 

The plaintiffs challenged various prison policies, including

the newly revised Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division Administrative Directive 03.72. The

plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege facts demonstrating a

constitutional violation. Thus, the district court correctly

dismissed the plaintiffs’ action for failure to state a claim. See

Scanlan v. Texas A&M University, 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).

Because the district court did not err in dismissing the

plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim, the district

court did not err in denying the motion for class action

maintainability as moot. Also, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying the motions for leave to amend because

the new claims the plaintiffs sought to add would have been futile.

See Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1992).

Lastly, the plaintiffs have not shown that the district court

abused its discretion in severing the claims of Larry Douglas and

 Case: 03-50739 Document: 0051522849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2004
No. 03-50739

-3-

Jose Rios. The facts underlying the severed claims do not arise

out of the same occurrences related to the complaints in the

instant lawsuit. See FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). Moreover, the events

or omissions giving rise to the severed claims occurred in another

venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. The plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is

DENIED.

 Case: 03-50739 Document: 0051522849 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2004