# Brown v. Davis

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 23, 1999 · 174 F.3d 198

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17180

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 23, 1999
- **Citations:** 174 F.3d 198; 1999 WL 152974
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17180

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40833
Summary Calendar

TRACY B. BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOANN DAVIS; KRISTEN L. LORMAN;
FRANCES ALMENDAREZ; DAVE METTING,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CV-107

February 22, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tracy Brian Brown, Texas prisoner # 656394, appeals the

dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Brown contends that the magistrate judge erroneously construed his

conspiracy complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), rather than

§ 1985(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the magistrate judge

impermissibly considered the merits of his retaliation claim.

We have reviewed the record and Brown’s brief and AFFIRM the

magistrate judge’s dismissal. Brown’s claim that the defendants

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
conspired to submit an altered government record and a perjured

affidavit in a federal habeas corpus proceeding fails to state a

claim under § 1985(2). See Nealy v. Hamilton, 837 F.2d 210, 212

(5th Cir. 1988); Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 1994).

To the extent that Brown presents his conspiracy claim pursuant to

§ 1983, his bald allegations based upon his own personal belief are

insufficient to state a § 1983 claim. See Babb, 33 F.3d at 476.

In addition, Brown’s conclusional allegations of retaliatory

conduct are insufficient to state a cognizable claim under § 1983.

See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1988).

Brown’s motion to supplement his brief is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17180. Public record. Not legal advice.