IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41458
Summary Calendar
CLIFTON DALE PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GERALD GARRETT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CV-226
--------------------
October 24, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clifton Dale Phillips, Texas prisoner # 601560, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
action against Gerald Garrett as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Phillips argues that the district court
erred in dismissing his § 1983 action as not timely filed within
the applicable two-year limitations period. He argues that his
complaint filed on September 28, 1999, was timely filed within
two years of two incidents in 1998 and 1999 in which the Parole
Board considered an offense of which he was acquitted. He argues
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-41458
-2-
that the Parole Board’s consideration of the offense of which he
was acquitted violated his constitutional rights. Even if the
district court may have erred in dismissing Phillips’ § 1983
action as untimely, the district court’s judgment may be affirmed
on the alternative ground that Phillips’ allegations, that the
Parole Board considered unreliable or false information in making
a parole determination, do not state a federal constitutional
violation. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308-09 (5th
Cir. 1997); see also Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th
Cir. 1992) (court may affirm district court’s judgment on any
ground supported by the record).
Phillips has filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
Because Phillips’ pleadings in the district court and on appeal
indicate that he is capable of representing himself adequately
and because this case does not present “exceptional
circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel, Phillips’
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Cooper v.
Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.
1991).
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.