IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50600
Conference Calendar
LEE ALLEN REECE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARY GOLDEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-96-CV-110
- - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lee Allen Reece, Texas prisoner #636526, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Reece is
GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We
assess an initial partial filing fee of $4.16 on Reece. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After collection of the initial partial
filing fee, Reece is required to make monthly payments of twenty
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50600
- 2 -
percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account,
No. 96-50600
- 3 -
until he has paid the entire $105 appellate filing fee.
§ 1915(b)(2).
IT IS ORDERED that Reece pay the appropriate initial partial
filing fee to the clerk of the District Court for the Western
District of Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having
custody of Reece’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of
the $105 filing fee and forward for payment, in accordance with
§ 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western
District of Texas each time the amount in Reece’s account exceeds
$10, until the appellate filing fee is paid.
Reece contends that the district court erred by dismissing
his complaint as frivolous. He argues that he was retaliated
against and that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not
bar his case because his conviction has been overturned.
The dismissal of Reece’s complaint as frivolous was not an
abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33
(1992). Reece argued retaliation in the district court but
provided no specific allegations indicating a retaliatory
motivation. See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819-20
(5th Cir. 1988). None of Reece’s contentions would have
undermined the validity of his conviction; Heck is inapplicable
to Reece’s case. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Reece’s appeal is
without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). His appeal therefore is
dismissed. Finally, Reece’s motion for appointment of counsel is
No. 96-50600
- 4 -
DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.