IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10218
Summary Calendar
EDDIE MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES MARTIN; DON MAJURE; ROBERT G. ESTRADA;
LEE ANN HALDANE; H. BEAVERS; MELINDA BOZARTH,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:96-CV-292-X
---------------------
January 15, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eddie Martin, Texas inmate #651314, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Martin also moves this court
for appointment of counsel on appeal and for leave to supplement
the record on appeal.
Martin’s motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-10218
- 2 -
supplement the record on appeal are DENIED.
The district court did not err in dismissing Martin’s § 1983
claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994),
and McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161
(5th Cir. 1995), because Martin has not demonstrated that the
revocation of his parole has been reversed, invalidated, or
otherwise set aside. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424
(5th Cir. 1996). The district court properly dismissed Martin’s
complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1).
Martin has not challenged the district court’s reasons for
dismissing his claims against Attorney Estrada and thus, Martin
has abandoned the issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (when appellant
fails to identify error in the district court's analysis, it is
as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment; this court
will not raise and discuss legal issues that the appellant has
failed to assert).
Martin’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. Martin is cautioned that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Martin should review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous.
No. 97-10218
- 3 -
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Martin v. Martin
Combined Opinion