IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31392
Conference Calendar
TELLY J. GUILLORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLEN IVORY; ADAM LAFLUER; GUY O. MITCHELL;
JOHN DOE, District Attorney 13th JDC Ville
Platte,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1781
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Telly J. Guillory (Guillory), Louisiana prisoner #320441,
appeals the dismissal of his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
This dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Ruiz
v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the Supreme
Court held that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that "would necessarily
imply the invalidity" of a conviction is not cognizable until 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31392
-2-
conviction has been set aside. Guillory alleged that he was
illegally searched, seized, and interrogated and that his
attorney violated his constitutional rights by withdrawing his
motion to suppress and by withdrawing as his counsel. He claimed
that defendants violated his constitutional rights, and he raised
claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, false
imprisonment, and illegal arrest. If proven, Guillory’s claims
would call into question his conviction. See id. These claims
are therefore not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Guillory’s
claims of injunctive and declaratory relief also are not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973); Heck, 512 U.S. at 481.
Guillory’s appeal is without merit and is therefore
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. The district court’s dismissal of this case
and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as
two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have
previously informed Guillory that he has three strikes under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. See Guillory v. Cain, No. 00-30891 (5th Cir. Oct.
17, 2000). The 28 U.S.C. § 1915 bar is still in effect.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.