Rodriguez v. Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility

Case: 13-10539 Document: 00512510208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-10539 January 23, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JUAN RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DALBY INMATE TRUST
ACCOUNT; DALBY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE; DALBY POST SERVICE;
DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY OFFICERS 1-100,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CV-10
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 43877-279, filed a purported 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against the Giles W. Dalby Correctional
Facility (Dalby C.F.) and some of its departments and employees. He alleged
that the defendants acted unconstitutionally by failing to investigate properly
the theft of a check he mailed to his family. The district court dismissed his
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-10539 Document: 00512510208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2014
No. 13-10539
action as frivolous because it failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for
failure to state a claim. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir.
2003). The action was properly dismissed if no relief could have been granted
as a matter of law even if the plaintiff’s factual allegations were accepted as
true. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
Section 1983 provides for an action against state but not federal actors.
Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856, 863 n.10 (5th Cir. 1999), overruled on other
grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), would provide the ground for an action against individual federal
actors. But because Dalby C.F. is a private facility, no Bivens action is
available against either the prison or its employees. See Minneci v. Pollard,
132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012); Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001).
There is no support for Rodriguez’s assertion that he may properly sue
these defendants as “agents” of the Bureau of Prisons or the United States
Postal Service. See Pollard, 132 S. Ct. at 623-24. His conclusional assertions
do not state a constitutional claim or challenge the district court’s ruling. See
Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Rodriguez does not
set forth any facts that would state a federal cause of action against the
defendants, his complaint was properly dismissed. See Harris, 198 F.3d at 156.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2