IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40802
Summary Calendar
BILLY CHARLES FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH SULEWSKI, Disciplinary Captain;
KENNETH RAMSEY, Regional Director; JIMMY
ALFORD, Warden; PATRICIA ADAMS, Property Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(99-CV-84)
- - - - - - - - - -
January 7, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Billy Charles Franklin, Texas prisoner #
580030, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action as frivolous for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Franklin alleged that his due process
rights were violated when he was deprived, as a result of a prison
disciplinary hearing, of 180 days of good-time credit in violation
of prison disciplinary rules, that his administrative appeals
regarding this deprivation and the failure to follow prison rules
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
were denied, and that he was denied access to legal materials which
caused him to file untimely administrative appeals of the
disciplinary hearing.
Franklin has not shown that his conviction in the disciplinary
proceeding has been overturned. Therefore, he may not seek
damages, declaratory, or injunctive relief based on the procedures
used in the disciplinary hearing in a § 1983 action because such
relief, if granted, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Clarke v.
Stalder, 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct.
1052 (1999).
Likewise, his assertion that two of the defendants deprived
him of due process by failing to correct on appeal the violation of
the prison rules does not state a claim because mere violation of
a prison rule does not state a constitutional claim, and his
appeals were untimely. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154
(5th Cir. 1986).
Finally, Franklin’s assertion that interference with his
ability to appeal a decision in a prison disciplinary hearing
implicates his constitutional right of access to the courts is
without basis.
Because the district court did not err in determining that
Franklin failed to state a claim, its decision is affirmed.
Franklin’s request for the appointment of counsel on appeal is
denied as moot.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
2