UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-50599
Summary Calendar
_____________________
WALTER MORRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
WALTER MORRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,
Defendants,
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-95-CV-89)
_________________________________________________________________
June 16, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants challenge, pro se, the district court’s dismissal
of their civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
They contend that they have a right to seek a declaratory judgment;
that the district court erred by dismissing their claims against
Governor Bush, by failing to substitute the correct party for a
defendant named in their complaint as “John Doe”, and by dismissing
their claims that they have a liberty interest in the expectancy of
parole release protected by the due process clause; that they were
denied a fair and meaningful parole hearing; and that changes in
Texas parole law and procedures violated the ex post facto clause
of the United States Constitution.
Because only Walter Morris and Dawud Al-Faruq signed the pro
se notice of appeal and appellate brief, they are the only parties
properly before this court. See Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238,
239 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th
Cir. 1991)). Therefore, the appeals of all other listed appellants
are DISMISSED.
Morris and Al-Faruq have not identified any reversible error
committed by the district court. See Morris v. TDCJ, No. A-95-CA-
89 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 1995) (unpublished). Accordingly, the
judgment is
AFFIRMED.
- 2 -