Newton, et al v. Stringfellow, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
March 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50739
Summary Calendar
SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III; LARRY DOUGLAS; DANIEL
JOHNSON; TERRENCE HAZEL; JOSE RIOS; JOE L. BUSTER;
JACKIE HINKLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
A.M. STRINGFELLOW; WILLIAM MOODY; ALFRED MORAN;
PATRICIA A. DAY; MARY BACON; DON B. JONES; JOHN
DAVID FRANZ; CAROL YOUNG; GARY JOHNSON; JANIE
COCKRELL; J.E. (JIMMY) ALFORD; DAVID STACKS;
JEREMIAH DAVIS; GARY GOMEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CV-618-JN
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel G. Newton, III, Larry Douglas, Daniel Johnson,
Terrence Hazel, Jose Rios, Joe L. Buster, and Jackie Hinkle appeal
the dismissal of their civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-50739
-2-
1983 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing
their action because the prison policies and conditions they
challenged in their complaint violate their constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs further contend that the district court erred in
denying two motions for leave to amend their complaint and denying
a motion for class action maintainability. Plaintiffs Jose Rios
and Larry Douglas also argue that the district court erred by
severing their claims of retaliation from the instant lawsuit.
The plaintiffs challenged various prison policies, including
the newly revised Texas Department of Criminal Justice-
Institutional Division Administrative Directive 03.72. The
plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege facts demonstrating a
constitutional violation. Thus, the district court correctly
dismissed the plaintiffs’ action for failure to state a claim. See
Scanlan v. Texas A&M University, 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
Because the district court did not err in dismissing the
plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim, the district
court did not err in denying the motion for class action
maintainability as moot. Also, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motions for leave to amend because
the new claims the plaintiffs sought to add would have been futile.
See Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1992).
Lastly, the plaintiffs have not shown that the district court
abused its discretion in severing the claims of Larry Douglas and

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-50739
-3-
Jose Rios. The facts underlying the severed claims do not arise
out of the same occurrences related to the complaints in the
instant lawsuit. See FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). Moreover, the events
or omissions giving rise to the severed claims occurred in another
venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --