Vaughn v. Dickens County Corr ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10128
Summary Calendar
ROBERT PAUL VAUGHN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DICKENS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:98-CV-247-C
- - - - - - - - - -
November 1, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Paul Vaughn, Texas prisoner # 619260, appeals the
district court’s partial dismissal and summary-judgment denial of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. On appeal he argues
(1) that the district court erred when it dismissed as frivolous
his claim that overcrowding at the Dickens County Correctional
Center (DCCC) resulted in unconstitutional prison conditions;
(2) that the district court erred when it dismissed as frivolous
his claim that the defendant failed to protect him from assault
by a fellow inmate; (3) that the district court erred when it
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-10128
-2-
granted summary judgment on his equal-protection claims; (4) that
he failed to receive notice of the hearing for defendant’s motion
for summary judgment; and (5) that the district court erred when
it denied his motion for appointment of counsel. Vaughn also has
filed with this court a motion for appointment of counsel and a
motion for an expedited appeal. These motions are DENIED.
To the extent that Vaughn seeks a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief, his claims are moot because he no longer is
incarcerated at DCCC. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County,
Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Vaughn has not
stated a viable § 1983 complaint for money damages either. He
named the DCCC as the only defendant in his complaint. As a
state instrumentality, DCCC is immune from a civil suit for money
damages under the Eleventh Amendment. See Talib v. Gilley, 138
F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, even if DCCC were an
entity capable of being sued, Vaughn’s theory of liability
depends on a finding of respondeat superior or vicarious
liability, but he fails to identify the individuals personally
responsible for the alleged constitutional deprivations. See
Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983)(holding
that personal involvement is an essential element of a civil
rights cause of action). In a § 1983 claim, recovery is not
available based on respondeat superior. See Baskin v. Parker,
602 F.2d 1205, 1207-08 (5th Cir. 1979).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. See
Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031
No. 00-10128
-3-
(5th Cir. 1981)(this court may affirm on grounds different from
those employed by the district court).
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.