IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21123
Summary Calendar
DONALD RAY FRENCH
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-3235
--------------------
April 3, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Ray French, Texas prisoner # 720074, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by a sanction
imposed by the district court for the Northern District of Texas.
French argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
action as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and in imposing a $100
monetary sanction. Although the district court erred in holding
that the district court for the Northern District of Texas
imposed the sanction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the
district court did not abuse its discretion in honoring the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21123
-2-
sanction imposed by a district court from another district.
See Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because the district court had previously dismissed three of
French’s prior civil actions for failure to obtain permission to
file them as required by the sanction imposed by the district
court for the Northern District of Texas, the district court did
not abused its discretion in imposing a $100 monetary sanction.
See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993).
To the extent that French is challenging his burglary
conviction, he must bring such claims in a habeas petition.
See Cook v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning
Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that
French is seeking damages based on his allegedly unconstitutional
conviction, his claim is not cognizable at this time because he
has not shown that his conviction has been “reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.” Heck v, Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
French v. Johnson
Combined Opinion