IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11100

Summary Calendar

ABDEL ELTAYIB,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORNELL COMPANIES INC; GEO GROUP, INC.; DAVID JUSTICE; STEVE

MCDANIEL; JOHN FARQUHAR; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE

#3; HARLEY LAPPIN; DONNA MELLENDICK; GLENN BALINAO; LOUIE

ESCOBELL; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CV-296

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Abdel Eltayib, formerly federal prisoner # 13882-050, appeals the

dismissal of a civil rights complaint he filed while imprisoned at Big Spring

Correctional Center (BSCC). Eltayib relied mainly on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971). Defendants included Cornell Companies, Inc. (Cornell) and GEO

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-11100 Document: 00512202660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2013
No. 12-11100

Group, Inc. (GEO), private corporations that were or are managing BSCC. 

Eltayib also named several former or current employees of Cornell or GEO at

BSCC, and he sued Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) director Harley Lappin,

BOP privatization administrator Donna Mellendick, and the BOP. 

Cornell, GEO, and their employees are not subject to suit as state actors

under § 1983. BSCC is a federal prison and “§ 1983 applies to constitutional

violations by state, rather than federal, officials.” Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856,

863 n.10 (5th Cir.1999) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by

Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003). 

In addition, Cornell, GEO, and their employees cannot be liable as private

actors under Bivens. See Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012);

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63-64 (2001). The BOP itself

also cannot be sued under Bivens. Malesko, 534 U.S. at 72. The Bivens claims

against BOP defendants Lappin and Mellendick, were properly dismissed

because they cannot be vicariously liable and because Eltayib failed to allege

facts that would show that their “own individual actions . . . violated the

Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). 

In support of hisFifth Amendment Equal Protection claim, Eltayib asserts

that the district court erred because the defendants had “policies . . . to transfer

[a] certain class of inmates to private facilities.” He does not identify this

“certain class” or explain why it was wrong to send anyone to a privately

managed prison. His amorphous conclusion of discrimination fails to show that

the district court erred by dismissing this claim. See Sossamon v. Lone Star

State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 336 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Although Eltayib concedes that his request for a transfer is moot in light

of his release from prison, he argues that the court erred by dismissing as moot

his request for injunctive relief seeking the immediate cessation of all prisoner

transfers to BSCC. He does not offer any basis for the district court to make

such a sweeping order. Except for the limited purpose of correcting proven

2

 Case: 12-11100 Document: 00512202660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2013
No. 12-11100

constitutional violations, federal courts are neither empowered nor equipped to

second-guess prison administrators or to engage in prison management. Ruiz

v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1126 (5th Cir. 1982) (and cases cited therein), vacated

in part on other grounds 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982). This contention is

frivolous. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Eltayib’s statelaw claims because it properly dismissed any federal claims that might have

supported supplemental jurisdiction. See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799-800

(5th Cir. 1993). Eltayib’s vague and conclusional assertions also fail to establish

diversity jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250,

1254 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Because Eltayib raises no relevant, nonfrivolous challenge to the dismissal

of his claims, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Eltayib’s motion

for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

3

 Case: 12-11100 Document: 00512202660 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2013