Michael Jewell v. Oliver Bell, et al

Filing

Michael Jewell v. Oliver Bell, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-41087

Document: 00511188663

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/29/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-41087 S u m m a r y Calendar July 29, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

M I C H A E L W. JEWELL, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lla n t , v. O L I V E R J. BELL; BRAD LIVINGSTON; RISSIE OWENS, D e fe n d a n t s ­ A p p e lle e s .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 6:09-CV-181

B e fo r e GARZA, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* I n a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint Michael W. Jewell, Texas prisoner # 212516, sued Oliver J. Bell, Chairman of the Texas Department of Criminal J u s tic e (TDCJ); Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the TDCJ; and Rissie O w e n s , Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Upon the m o t io n of the defendants, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure t o state a claim upon which relief may be granted under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-41087

Document: 00511188663 Page: 2 No. 09-41087

Date Filed: 07/29/2010

" T h is court reviews a district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, a c c e p t in g all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most fa v o r a b le to the plaintiffs." Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5 t h Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "To survive a motion to d is m is s , a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `s ta t e a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1 9 3 7 , 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). J e w e ll first challenges the district court's denial of leave to amend his c o m p la in t . Although the district court did not permit Jewell to amend his c o m p la in t , he was provided an opportunity to plead his best case when he was d ir e c t e d to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F .3 d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 790-93 (5th C ir . 1986). This court's review of the record, including the amended complaint t h a t Jewell attempted to file, indicates that the district court did not abuse its d is c r e t io n by denying leave to amend, because any amendment would have been fu t i l e . See Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United S ta te s of America Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir. 1999). J e w e ll's allegations against Bell and Livingston are speculative, c o n c lu s io n a l, and fail to state a claim for § 1983 relief. See Farmer v. Brennan, 5 1 1 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 1994); T h o m p k in s v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1987); Green v. McKaskle, 7 7 0 F.2d 445, 446-47 (5th Cir. 1985). Jewell's claims against Owens are

s im ila r ly speculative and therefore do not state a claim for relief. See Village of W illo w b r o o k v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); California Dep't of Corr. v. M o r a le s , 514 U.S. 499, 508-09 (1995); Wallace v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 351, 3 5 4 -5 6 (5th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). Next, Jewell argues that he should have been allowed to appeal to the d is t r ic t court from the magistrate judge's decision to withdraw its order that he a m e n d his complaint. Although the district court did not provide reasons for 2

Case: 09-41087

Document: 00511188663 Page: 3 No. 09-41087

Date Filed: 07/29/2010

d e n y in g Jewell's motions to amend, the district court nonetheless denied Jewell's m o t io n s when it denied all pending motions. Thus, Jewell did appeal the

m a g is tr a t e judge's order to the district court, although he did not receive a fa v o r a b le result. Jewell also argues that the district court erred by denying him leave to c o n d u c t discovery, yet he fails to explain how his discovery requests would have im p a c t e d the determination that he failed to state a claim. He therefore has fa ile d to establish that the district court abused its discretion by denying his d is c o v e r y requests. See Williamson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 815 F.2d 3 6 8 , 382 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, while Jewell asserts that the district court did not liberally c o n s t r u e his pleadings, he fails to provide specific examples of how his a lle g a t i o n s were misconstrued. This argument does not reveal error in the d is t r ic t court's determination that dismissal was warranted. F o r the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is A F F IR M E D .

3