IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10054
Conference Calendar
ALBERT LEE ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TERRY R. MEANS; CHARLES R. FULBRUGE, III;
WILLIAM K. SUTER; GARY L. MEDLIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No.4:00-CV-1741-A
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Albert Lee Robertson, Texas prisoner # 746610, appeals from
the dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A.
Robertson’s pleadings, even after the district court ordered
him to amend his complaint, did not contain a supportable
allegation of the violation of a constitutional right and were at
best conclusory. His allegations on appeal are equally vague and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10054
-2-
conclusory. Therefore, the district court did not err in
dismissing his § 1983 complaint. See Resident Council of Allen
Parkway Village v. United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev.,
980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir. 1993); Tuchman v. DSC
Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because Robertson’s complaint revolves around the dismissal of
his federal habeas petition, to the extent that he attempts to
challenge his conviction or confinement, his claims are barred.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Accordingly,
we find that the appeal is without arguable merit, and it is
dismissed as frivolous.
Robertson has had at least one prior civil rights complaint
dismissed as frivolous. See Robertson v. Layton, No. 96-CV-798
(E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 1997). Because this appeal is dismissed as
frivolous and his instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint was
dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim,
Robertson now has at least three strikes against him within the
meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.
1996). Robertson may not proceed IFP in any civil action or
appeal brought while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 385.
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.