IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40983 Conference Calendar

DANIEL JOHNSON; SAMUEL G. NEWTON; LARRY DOUGLAS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

DAVID STACKS, Senior Warden, individually and in his official capacity; J.E. ALFORD, former Senior Warden and presently Regional Director, individually and in his official capacity; GARY JOHNSON, Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, individually and in his official capacity; WAYNE SCOTT, Executive Director, individually and in his official capacity; TERESA MCKNIGHT, Correctional Officer, individually and in her official capacity; JEREMIAH DAVIS, Correctional Officer, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES DEFRANCE, Correctional Officer, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:01-CV-56 -------------------- December 11, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Johnson, Texas prisoner #274157, Samuel G. Newton,

III, Texas prisoner #477341, and Larry Douglas, Texas prisoner

#504213, appeal from the denial of their motions for a

preliminary injunction against what they allege is retaliation by

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-40983 -2-

prison officials. The denial of their motions was not an abuse

of discretion. Lakedreams v. Taylor,

(5th

Cir. 1991). Johnson, Newton, and Douglas have not carried their

“heavy burden” of showing that they likely will prevail on the

merits of their claims. See Enter. Int’l v. Corporacion Estatal

Petrolera Ecuatoriana,

(5th Cir. 1985). We

express no opinion on the ultimate determination of the claims of

Johnson, Newton, and Douglas on their merits. The requests for

mandamus relief and to expedite the appeal are DENIED.

We note that Newton and Douglas were added as plaintiffs

through Johnson’s amendment of right. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).

Additionally, we note that the district court has yet to rule on

the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Johnson’s claims be

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

AFFIRMED.