Jordan v. Nelms
Jordan v. Nelms
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10803 Conference Calendar
TOMMY EARL JORDAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN NELMS, Trial Judge of the 195th District Court; WILLIAM HILL, District Attorney of Dallas County; EMILY DEVAUGHN, Loss Prevention Officer; DAVIS NORWOOD, Loss Prevention Officer; RUSS HENRICHS, Court Appointed Attorney; PATRICK KIRLIN, Assistant Chief Prosecutor, WHITE MALE, Assistant Prosecutor; HISPANIC MALE, Assistant Prosecutor,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CV-1043-M -------------------- December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Earl Jordan, Texas prisoner # 730527, appeals the
dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint as frivolous pursuant
to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We review the dismissal of his
complaint for an abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193(5th Cir. 1997).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-10803 -2-
To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, a
42 U.S.C. § 1983plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed or
otherwise declared invalid. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87(1994). Jordan has not established that an authorized
tribunal or executive body has overturned or otherwise
invalidated his conviction, and, therefore, his civil rights
claims are not cognizable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
id. at 487. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous.
Jordan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20(5th
Cir. 1983). The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as
a strike for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the
strike for the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v.
Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388(5th Cir. 1996). Jordan has also had
a second civil rights suit dismissed as frivolous. See Jordan v.
Dallas County, Texas, No. 95-CV-590 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1997);
Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr.,
136 F.3d 458, 463-64(5th Cir.
1998). Jordan has thus accumulated three “strikes” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He is BARRED from bringing any civil action or
appeal in forma pauperis while he is incarcerated or detained in No. 02-10803 -3-
any facility unless he shows that he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; THREE-
STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished