IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20599
Conference Calendar
JOHNNY CORDOBA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES BACARISSE,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-919
--------------------
December 11, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Johnny Cordoba, Texas prisoner # 702311, challenges the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He renews his claim that Bacarisse
and various Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”)
officials violated his constitutional right of access to the
courts.
The district court’s dismissal was proper because the true
nature of Cordoba’s complaint was an indirect challenge to his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20599
-2-
conviction and sentence. As such, it is barred. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Alternatively, dismissal was
appropriate because Cordoba could not prove the required injury
resulting from the denial of access as he filed a direct appeal,
a state habeas application, and a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996); Brewer v. Wilkinson,
3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Chriceol v. Phillips,
169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999). The fact that each of these
ultimately proved unsuccessful is not sufficient to establish the
required injury. See Chriceol, 169 F.3d at 317.
Moreover, Cordoba had no constitutional right to have
documents forwarded in his state-habeas proceedings.** Cf.
Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1997).
Cordoba similarly had no constitutional right to counsel in his
federal-habeas proceedings due to his functional illiteracy, the
apparent basis for his denial-of-access claim against the TDCJ
officials. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987);
Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855, 859 (5th Cir. 1992).
Cordoba has not demonstrated any error in the district
court’s judgment. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED. His
motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
**
Additionally, as the district court found, the state-
court record demonstrates that all records were in fact forwarded
to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.