IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41089
Conference Calendar
EDWARD HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Director of Texas
Department of Criminal Justice; JOHN S. FISHER,
Staff Counsel for Inmates,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-557
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edward Hill, Texas prisoner # 696537, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous or
for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
He renews his claim for money damages against the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) for illegally
incarcerating him, but he does not renew his claim against John
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41089
-2-
Fisher, and that claim is waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Hill argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
claim against the TDCJ for failure to exhaust and as barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). This court need not
address Hill’s exhaustion arguments because the district court
correctly determined that Hill’s claim for money damages arising
out of his allegedly illegal incarceration is barred by Heck.
Although Hill contends that he has overcome the Heck bar by
demonstrating that his judgment of conviction was invalidated in
November 1997, the amended judgment to which Hill refers simply
deleted the jury’s affirmative finding that he used a deadly
weapon; Hill’s conviction and 50-year sentence were otherwise
unaffected. The district court’s dismissal is therefore
AFFIRMED. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d
26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994).
Hill’s motions to file supplemental briefs are DENIED. Hill
is advised that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). He is
CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will be
barred from proceeding in forma pauperis 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; MOTIONS DENIED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.