### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11100 Summary Calendar

ABDEL ELTAYIB, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CORNELL COMPANIES INC; GEO G R OUP, INC.; DAVID JUSTICE; STEVE MCDANIEL; J OHN FARQUHAR; JOHN DOE # 1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; HARL E Y LAPPIN; DONNA MELLENDICK; GLENN BALINAO; LOUIE ESCOBELL; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CV-296

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abdel E ltayib, f

ormerly federal prisoner # 13882- 0 5 0 , appeals the dismissal of a civil rights complaint he filed while i m p r isoned at B ig Spring Correctiona l Center (BSCC). Eltayib relied mainly on 42 U.S.C. § 1 983, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 ( 1971). Defendants i nclud e d Cornell Companies, I nc. ( Cornell) and GEO U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 9, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11100 Document: 00512202660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2013No. 12-11100

Group, Inc. (GEO), p rivat e c o r p o rations that were or are managing BSCC. Elta y i b a l s o n amed several f ormer or current employees of Cornell or GEO at BSCC, a nd he su e d F e d e ral 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 i s a federal prison and “§ 1983 applies to constitutional

v i olations by state, rather than federal , officials.” Evans v. Ball , 168 F.3d 856 , 863 n.10 (5th Cir.1999) (emphasis a d d e d), overruled on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo , 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003). In addition, C ornell, GEO, and their employees cannot be l iable as private actors under Bivens

. See Minneci v . P o llard , 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012); Correctional Services C orp. v. Malesko , 534 U.S. 61, 6 3-64 (2001). The BOP itself also cannot be sued under Bivens

. Malesko , 534 U.S. at 72. The Bivens claims against BOP defendants Lappi n and Mellendick, were p r operly dismissed because they cannot be vicariously liable and because Elt a y i b failed to allege facts that would show t h a t t h e i r “own individual actions

. . . violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). In suppo rt o f h i s Fi f

th Amendment Equal Protection c laim, Eltayib asserts that the district c ourt e rred because the defendants had “policies

. . . to transfer [a] certain class of inmates t o p rivate facilities.” He does not identify this “cer t a i n c l a ss” 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 e rred 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 c ourt erred b y dismissing as moot his request for i njunctive relief seeking the immediate cessation of all prisoner tra n s f e r s t o B S CC. He does not offer any basis for the district court to make

s u ch a sweeping order. Except for the limited purpose of correctin g p r o v e n 2 Case: 12-11100 Document: 00512202660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2013No. 12-11100

constitutional violations, federal courts are neither empowered nor equipped to

secon d

- g u e ss prison administrators or to engage in p r ison management. Ruiz

v. Estelle , 679 F.2d 1115, 1126 (5th Cir. 1982) (and cases cited therein), vacated in part on other g rounds 688 F.2d 2 66 ( 5th C i r . 1 982). This c ontention is frivolous. The district court did not ab u s e i t s di scretion by dismissing Eltayib’s statel a w claims because it properly dismissed any federal claims t hat might have supported supplemental jurisdiction. See Noble v. W h ite , 996 F.2d 797, 799-800 (5th Cir. 1993). Eltayib’s v ague and conclusional assertions also fail to establish diversity jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg , 134 F.3d 1250, 1254 (5th Cir. 1998). B e c a u s e E l t ayib r a i s e s n o relevant, nonfrivolous challenge to the dismis s a l of h is claims, the judgment of the district court i s AFFIRMED. Eltayib’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

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