IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-20598
Summary Calendar
_____________________
HENRY LEWIS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MORRIS JONES, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
USDC Nos. H-94-CV-3423 and H-95-CV-845
_________________________________________________________________
July 27, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Lewis, Jr., Texas prisoner # 582211, appeals the summary
judgment dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis consolidated
civil rights lawsuits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lewis’s
arguments on appeal are unavailing, and the district court’s
decision is affirmed.
Lewis initially argues that the district court improperly
consolidated his two lawsuits. The two lawsuits Lewis filed
involved common issues of law and fact, and the district court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering that they be
consolidated. Bottazzi v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 664 F.2d
49, 50 (5th Cir. 1981). The fact that a defendant was named in one
lawsuit and not the other does not, standing alone, render
consolidation inappropriate. Id.
Lewis next argues that the district court’s grant of summary
judgment was error. He does not, however, raise any arguments
regarding the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his
due process claims or his claims against Morris Jones.
Consequently, Lewis has abandoned those claims. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(issues must be briefed to be
preserved for appeal).
The district court did not err in dismissing Lewis’s claim
that the defendants violated the Lamar1 and Ruiz2 consent decrees
because remedial decrees cannot serve as a basis for a claim of
damages under § 1983. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1123 (5th
Cir. 1986); Martel v. Fridovich, 14 F.3d 1, 3 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court likewise did not err in awarding summary
judgment on Lewis’s equal protection claims because he failed to
create a material factual dispute that the defendants acted with a
1
See Lamar v. Coffield, 951 F.Supp. 629, 630 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
2
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), aff’d
in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.), amended in
part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
2–
discriminatory motive. See Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th
Cir. 1995). Similarly, Lewis failed to create a factual dispute
regarding whether the defendants acted with a retaliatory motive,
rendering dismissal of his retaliation claims appropriate. See
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
516 U.S. 1084 (1996).
The district court did not err in dismissing Lewis’s
conspiracy claim because he failed to demonstrate by any means
other than his own conclusional allegations that the defendants
conspired to commit an illegal act. Dayse v. Shuldt, 894 F.2d 170,
173 (5th Cir. 1990). Lewis has not adequately briefed his argument
that the district court erred in dismissing his remaining claims
against the defendants who were not served, and it is therefore
deemed abandoned. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
A F F I R M E D.
3–