IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10301
Summary Calendar
JIMMY ROY DAVIDSON
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRIS HOBBS, ET AL.,
Defendants
R. DREWRY; J.V. YOUNG;
W. STEPHENS, Major; C.C. BELL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(1:95-CV-087-BA)
November 21, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Roy Davidson, Texas Prisoner #612588, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against the
warden and other officials of his state prison unit.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Davidson is not entitled to relief on grounds that these are
state-law negligence claims sustainable under pendent jurisdiction
over the Ruiz1 consent decree. Such claims are barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity, which the state did not waive by agreeing to a
consent decree in another case. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d
1116, 1123 (5th Cir. 1986) (no waiver effected by the Ruiz consent
decree); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 us 89,
121 (1984) (no pendent jurisdiction over claims otherwise barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Davidson’s contention that he has adequately articulated a
policy of torture for which he states a § 1983 claim is meritless.
The complaint purports to list the names of 17 black and Latino
inmates allegedly mistreated in the same manner that he claims to
have been. This is not a policy or practice. He has alleged no
facts of who may have tortured what inmates, when they did so, how
they did so, on what authority, or how the defendants in this case
were involved. He has given no details of who created this
“policy” or on what authority they acted. “Mere conclusory
allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material
facts, state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy under 42
U.S. § 1983.” Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1986)
(internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff’s bald assertion “that a
1
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (1980), aff’d in part,
rev’d in part, 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part, vacated in part, 688
F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).
2
pattern of torture existed that could be easily detected” is not
enough. As Davidson either could not or did not utilize the
opportunity he was given to remedy the deficiencies in his
complaint, the district court’s dismissal of these defendants is
AFFIRMED. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1993).
We express no opinion as to the correctness of the district court’s
order to defendants Chris Hobbs and Lt. W. Bardin to file
responsive pleadings, as it is not final. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
3