UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-30387
Summary Calendar
EVELYN JACKSON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(94 CV 1540)
September 22, 1995
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Evelyn Jackson, and her two sons Adam and Arthur,
("Plaintiffs") filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the Western
District of Louisiana against the United States alleging violations
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides:
"The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and
merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled
principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and
burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
that the Government of the United States had been "negligent in its
duty to protect the constitutional rights of seven generations of
American Citizens" because the United States had failed to prevent
or to correct civil rights violations committed by white law
enforcement officials against black people in Alabama.
The Government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the motion, the
Government argued that the complaint failed to provide a concise
factual description of the claim and failed to establish any basis
for bringing a § 1983 claim against the United States. In response
to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an "Amended
Complaint and Motion to Request Denial of Dismissal by Defendant."
However, this document did not contain any additional factual
allegations.
The magistrate judge, to whom the case was assigned for
review, recommended granting the Government's motion to dismiss
because the complaint and the amended complaint failed to assert
any cognizable claim against the United States. Following a de
novo review of the record, the district court adopted the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiffs argue that the district court prematurely
dismissed their complaint. This court reviews de novo a dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th
2
Cir. 1993). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is appropriate when,
accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts that would entitle him to relief. McCartney v. First
City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). The plaintiff must
plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations. Tuchman v.
DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994). This
court will not accept as true conclusory allegations or unwarranted
deductions of fact. Id.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs made conclusory allegations
that the United States had failed to protect the civil rights of
the black Americans in Alabama. Although they provide one example
of potentially improper conduct by law enforcement officials, they
provided no factual details to establish how the United States was
responsible for the incident. The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint and objections to the magistrate judge's report, but
failed to cure the deficiencies in their complaint.
A liberal reading of the Plaintiffs' complaint indicates that
Plaintiff Evelyn Jackson alleged a possible Fourth Amendment
violation by law enforcement officials. This court neither makes
nor intimates any decision concerning the merit of this allegation,
but we note that in an action instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the
proper defendants would be the law enforcement officials or other
state actors rather than the United States Government.1
1
See Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. U.S. Dep't
of Housing and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th. Cir. 1993) (to
obtain relief under § 1983 a plaintiff must prove he was deprived
3
Although the district court should permit a pro se plaintiff
to amend a complaint if it appears that there is a potential ground
for relief,2 the district court need not permit futile amendments.
Davis v. Louisiana State Univ., 876 F.2d 412, 413-14 (5th Cir.
1989). Because the Plaintiffs failed to provide the district court
with any factual allegations to support a claim against the United
States, the district court properly dismissed the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the district court's dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' complaint is
AFFIRMED.
of a right under the Constitution or laws of the United States and
that the person depriving him of that right acted under color of
state law), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 75, 126 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1993).
2
See Gallegos v. La. Code of Criminal Procedures Art. 658,
858 F.2d 1091, 1092 (5th Cir. 1988) (pro se plaintiff who has named
the wrong defendant should be permitted to amend his pleadings when
it is clear from his complaint that there is a potential ground for
relief).
4