Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40350/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

F I L E D

February 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40350

Summary Calendar

 

GUILLERMO BERRIOCHOA LOPEZ; TRANSPORTES INTERMEX

S A DE C V; S’ANTONIO TRANSPORTES S A DE C V; JOSE

SILVANO MAGANA LOPEZ; JOSE ALFREDO MAGANA LOPEZ;

MIGUEL ANGEL DE LA ROSA SANCHEZ SERVICIO TECNICO

AUTOMOTRIZ PERISUR S A DE C V; TOMAS DE LA ROSA PARRA;

ERNESTO VALLET HACES; MAX E. BARTON; CARLOS BERRIOCHOA,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

MARY E. PETERS, Administrator of Federal Highway

Administration; JOSEPH M. CLAPP, Administrator of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; DOES, 1-100

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CV-208

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal the dismissal of their civil rights

action, asserted against several United States Government officers

in their official and individual capacities. The United States and

 Case: 03-40350 Document: 0051506563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2004
2

its officers are immune from suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the civil rights

statutes, and such actions may be brought only against persons

acting in their individual capacities. See Affiliated Prof’l Home

Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court held that it did not have personal

jurisdiction against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Although the appellants alleged that the defendants’ actions

prevented them from operating in or investing in companies within

the State of Texas, those claims clearly pertain to acts taken by

them in their official capacities. There are no allegations

showing that the defendants, as individuals, had either specific or

general minimum contacts within the State of Texas. See Wilson v.

Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994). The appellants have not

shown that the district court’s order was plainly erroneous. See

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc). We do not reach the appellants’ arguments regarding the merits of their constitutional claims.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40350 Document: 0051506563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2004