* Local Rule 47.5 provides:

"The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and

merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled

principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and

burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30387

Summary Calendar

EVELYN JACKSON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(94 CV 1540)

September 22, 1995

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Evelyn Jackson, and her two sons Adam and Arthur,

("Plaintiffs") filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the Western

District of Louisiana against the United States alleging violations

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged
2

that the Government of the United States had been "negligent in its

duty to protect the constitutional rights of seven generations of

American Citizens" because the United States had failed to prevent

or to correct civil rights violations committed by white law

enforcement officials against black people in Alabama. 

The Government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the motion, the

Government argued that the complaint failed to provide a concise

factual description of the claim and failed to establish any basis

for bringing a § 1983 claim against the United States. In response

to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an "Amended

Complaint and Motion to Request Denial of Dismissal by Defendant."

However, this document did not contain any additional factual

allegations.

The magistrate judge, to whom the case was assigned for

review, recommended granting the Government's motion to dismiss

because the complaint and the amended complaint failed to assert

any cognizable claim against the United States. Following a de

novo review of the record, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the

complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

DISCUSSION

The Plaintiffs argue that the district court prematurely

dismissed their complaint. This court reviews de novo a dismissal

for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th
 

1 See Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. U.S. Dep't

of Housing and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th. Cir. 1993) (to

obtain relief under § 1983 a plaintiff must prove he was deprived

3

Cir. 1993). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is appropriate when,

accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing them in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can prove no

set of facts that would entitle him to relief. McCartney v. First

City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). The plaintiff must

plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations. Tuchman v.

DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994). This

court will not accept as true conclusory allegations or unwarranted

deductions of fact. Id. 

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs made conclusory allegations

that the United States had failed to protect the civil rights of

the black Americans in Alabama. Although they provide one example

of potentially improper conduct by law enforcement officials, they

provided no factual details to establish how the United States was

responsible for the incident. The Plaintiffs filed an amended

complaint and objections to the magistrate judge's report, but

failed to cure the deficiencies in their complaint. 

A liberal reading of the Plaintiffs' complaint indicates that

Plaintiff Evelyn Jackson alleged a possible Fourth Amendment

violation by law enforcement officials. This court neither makes

nor intimates any decision concerning the merit of this allegation,

but we note that in an action instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the

proper defendants would be the law enforcement officials or other

state actors rather than the United States Government.1
of a right under the Constitution or laws of the United States and

that the person depriving him of that right acted under color of

state law), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 75, 126 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1993).

 

2 See Gallegos v. La. Code of Criminal Procedures Art. 658,

858 F.2d 1091, 1092 (5th Cir. 1988) (pro se plaintiff who has named

the wrong defendant should be permitted to amend his pleadings when

it is clear from his complaint that there is a potential ground for

relief).

4

Although the district court should permit a pro se plaintiff

to amend a complaint if it appears that there is a potential ground

for relief,2 the district court need not permit futile amendments.

Davis v. Louisiana State Univ., 876 F.2d 412, 413-14 (5th Cir.

1989). Because the Plaintiffs failed to provide the district court

with any factual allegations to support a claim against the United

States, the district court properly dismissed the complaint under

Rule 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, the district court's dismissal of

the Plaintiffs' complaint is

AFFIRMED.