IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20032
USDC No. CA-H-95-1279
PAUL EARL DORSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. STINE; MARSHALL D. HERKLOT;
B. DRIVER; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
July 25, 1996
Before DAVIS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Earl Dorsey, Texas prisoner #642562, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). For the first time on
appeal, Dorsey argues that prison officials violated certain
prison regulations concerning access to medical treatment.
Because Dorsey raised this claim for the first time on appeal, we
review for plain error. Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 79
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20032
- 2 -
F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Dorsey’s allegation
that prison officials violated a prison regulation does not
establish a constitutional violation. See Jackson v. Cain, 864
F.2d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989). Therefore, there is no error,
plain or otherwise.
Dorsey argues that the punishment imposed in the
disciplinary proceedings, the loss of a substantial amount of
good-time credits, was excessive and disproportionate to the
offenses charged. Because Dorsey’s claim calls into question the
duration of his confinement, he must challenge successfully the
decision denying his good-time credits in a habeas corpus action
before bringing a § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.
Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973); Wilson v. Foti, 832 F.2d 891, 892 (5th Cir. 1987).
Dorsey argues that the three disciplinary proceedings
violated his due process rights, that they were not supported by
the evidence, and that he was denied access to the prison
grievance system. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal.
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992).
Dorsey has not raised a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, his motion for IFP is DENIED and his appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Dorsey’s “Application
for Process of Service,” motion for discovery, motion for
No. 96-20032
- 3 -
production of documents, motion for interrogatories, motion for
admission, and motion for continuance are also DENIED.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.