Schwarzer v. Squyres ( 2023 )

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. § 1983civil 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