Court Opinion

ID: 9364747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 01:00:43.30022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.675431
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40256         Document: 00516616659             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-40256
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 19, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Mark Schwarzer,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Clerk of Court Reba D. Squyres; Paul E. White; Robert
   K. Inselmann; Judge Olen Underwood; Chief Justice
   James T. Worthen; Justice Brian Hoyle; Greg Neeley;
   Angelina County,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:22-CV-89
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Mark Schwarzer, Texas prisoner # 1433741, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   civil rights complaint, alleging that eight defendants violated his
   constitutional rights of access to the courts and equal protection. On appeal,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40256      Document: 00516616659           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/19/2023

                                     No. 22-40256

   Schwarzer challenges the district court’s dismissal of his claims against three
   state appellate court judges, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), for failure to
   state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking monetary relief
   from immune defendants. Schwarzer also challenges the severance and
   transfer of his claims against the remaining five defendants to the Lufkin
   Division of the Eastern District of Texas.
          Following a de novo review, see Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273,
   275 (5th Cir. 1998), we discern no error in the district court’s dismissal of
   Schwarzer’s claims for damages against the judges based on the doctrine of
   judicial immunity, see Davis v. Tarrant Cnty., 565 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir.
   2009); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, given
   Schwarzer’s conclusory allegations that the defendants conspired against
   him, we discern no error in the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
   claim upon which relief may be granted. See Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d
   1022, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 1982). To the extent that Schwarzer challenges the
   validity of his conviction and seeks release from prison, his claims are not
   cognizable under § 1983. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004).
   Finally, it is unavailing for Schwarzer to suggest that he could pursue a class
   action with the assistance of legal counsel to vindicate the rights of other
   prisoners when the defendants were properly dismissed as immune.
          As for the remaining five defendants, the district court did not abuse
   its discretion in ordering a severance and transfer to the Lufkin Division
   where the events forming the basis of the claims against these defendants
   took place. See Def. Distributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 427, 433-36 (5th Cir.
   2022); see also Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2