Jackson v. Caddo Corrtl Center
Jackson v. Caddo Corrtl Center
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30426 Conference Calendar
ROBERT JACKSON, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CADDO CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-2275 -------------------- October 17, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Jackson, III, Caddo Correctional Center (CCC)
#383663, appeals from the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action as frivolous; the denial of his petition for mandamus
relief; and the dismissal of a constructive habeas corpus claim
for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. Jackson moves for
injunctive relief; his motion is DENIED. Jackson contends that
the district court erred by dismissing his mandamus petition on
jurisdictional grounds; that the district court erred by
construing a request for release from imprisonment as a habeas
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-30426 -2-
corpus claim; and that his rights to due process and self-
representation are being denied by restrictions on his access to
the CCC’s law library or to legal materials.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to order mandamus
relief ordering more law-library access for Jackson. Moye v.
Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court,
474 F.2d 1275, 1276(5th
Cir. 1976). Jackson explicitly disclaimed seeking habeas relief
in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Because
Jackson abandoned any habeas claims, the district court need not
have considered those claims.
Jackson had not been convicted when he sought relief in the
district court. District courts should abstain from entertaining
claims that implicate the integrity of pending state-court
criminal proceedings but may retain jurisdiction if the plaintiff
has alleged sufficient injuries to justify a retention of
jurisdiction. See Marts v. Hines,
117 F.3d 1504, 1505(5th Cir.
1997)(en banc), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 1058(1998). Jackson
waived representation by appointed counsel; he “had no
constitutional right to access a law library in preparing the pro
se defense of his criminal trial.” Degrate v. Godwin,
84 F.2d 768, 769(5th Cir. 1996). Jackson therefore did not allege
sufficient injuries to justify a retention of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished