IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10709
Summary Calendar
DAVID NULL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D.D. SANDERS, Warden;
DANIEL A. ROJAS, Correctional Officer 3;
JOSE L. VALENZUELA, Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:00-CV-58)
--------------------
(August 28, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant David Null, Texas prisoner #624372,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted. He contends that the district court erred
in relying upon Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), to dismiss his claims against the
officers who allegedly assaulted him. Null argues that because he
did not lose any good-time credits through his disciplinary
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
proceeding, he is no longer “in custody” pursuant to that
proceeding so that the requirements of Heck need not be fulfilled.
Null has failed to show, however, that he did not in fact lose
good-time credits as a result of the disciplinary proceeding.
Consequently, before he could obtain money damages for the alleged
assault by Officers Rojas and Valenzuela, Null would have to show
that the result of the disciplinary hearing, in which he was
charged with striking an officer, had been overturned. As Null
concedes that his disciplinary conviction has not been overturned,
his claims are barred by Heck and Edwards.
Null also contends that Warden Sanders failed to investigate
adequately his grievance filed against Rojas and Valenzuela.
Inasmuch as the result of this grievance has no bearing on the
duration of his confinement, however, Null cannot show the
existence of a state-created liberty interest in an inmate
grievance procedure. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Null nevertheless advances that Sanders should have known
about the officers’ history of retaliatory beatings of prisoners;
yet he provides nothing other than his unsubstantiated allegation
that such a history exists. Without more, that is not sufficient
to support a civil rights claim. See Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256,
258 (5th Cir. 1988).
Null also asserts that Sanders failed to train Valenzuela and
Rojas sufficiently. As Null has failed to show a causal link
between a failure to train and the alleged violation of his rights,
2
and has failed to show that Sanders had any knowledge of a risk to
Null before Null filed his grievance, this claim fails as well.
See Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998).
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is,
in all respects, affirmed. We hereby advise Null that the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted constitutes one
“strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996); and that if he receives
two more “strikes,” he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any
civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained
in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
3