IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50285
Summary Calendar
REMIGIO A. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NANCY HEES; TX. BOARD OF PARDONS;
S.O. WOODS, JR.; KATHY CLEERE;
STEPHEN L. ROGERS, Warden; VERONICA
BALLARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-98-CV-696-SS
- - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 2000
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Remigio A. Martinez, Texas prisoner # 799604, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Martinez challenged
the issuance of a pre-revocation warrant of arrest for his
alleged violation of the terms of his mandatory supervision
stemming from his conviction for carrying a weapon on school
property. He admits that while he was serving his term of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50285
-2-
mandatory supervision, he committed robbery and theft. He
pleaded guilty to the theft charge prior to the expiration of his
term of mandatory supervision and was sentenced to nine months of
incarceration. Subsequent to the expiration of his term of
mandatory supervision, but while he remained incarcerated on the
theft charge, he was bench warranted to Bexar County to stand
trial on the robbery charge. The day after this bench warrant
was issued, the pre-revocation warrant he challenges was issued.
The pre-revocation warrant was withdrawn after Martinez was
sentenced on the robbery charge, and his mandatory supervision
was not revoked. On appeal, Martinez argues that the issuance of
the pre-revocation warrant violated his rights under the Due
Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses.
Because Martinez was incarcerated for the theft charge and
as a result of the bench warrant issued in the robbery case, he
has not established that he was punished or that his liberty was
infringed as a result of the allegedly mistaken issuance of the
pre-revocation warrant after his discharge date for the
underlying conviction passed. Therefore, he has not shown the
denial of a constitutional right, see Doe v. Rains County Ind.
Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir. 1995), and the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.