IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40696 Summary Calendar

CEDRIC CHARLES FIGGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR J. VRAZEL; CHARLES LACKEY; LAURIE MEDIA; KERRY DIXON; MARK DIAZ; LEPHER JENKINS; HURKALOT, Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (99-CV-81) -------------------- December 15, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Cedric Charles Figgs, Texas prisoner No.

623481, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights

complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i).

To the extent that Figgs seeks restoration of lost good-time

credits, the district court properly dismissed his claims because

such relief is not available under

. Preiser v.

Rodriguez,

(1973); Clarke v. Stalder,

(5th Cir. 1998)(en banc), cert. denied,

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. (1999). We also find no error in the dismissal of Figgs’s claims

of conspiracy because Figgs failed to provide any factual support

for his allegations. Babb v. Dorman,

(5th Cir.

1994); Hale v. Harney,

(5th Cir. 1986).

The district court did err, however, in dismissing Figgs’s

claim for monetary damages based on alleged due process violations

in prison disciplinary proceedings because Figgs specifically

alleged, both in his complaint and in his objections to the

magistrate judge’s report, that the challenged disciplinary

conviction had been expunged on administrative review. Heck v.

Humphrey,

(1994); Edwards v. Balisok,

(1997); see Clarke,

. Thus, the district

court abused its discretion when it dismissed the complaint without

further exploration of Figgs’s allegations. Norton v. Dimazana,

(5th Cir. 1997); Wesson v. Oglesby,

(5th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2