IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40633
Conference Calendar
JOHN A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN J. EASTLAND, Attorney at Law;
DAVID DOBBS, Assistant District Attorney,
Smith County,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-486
- - - - - - - - - -
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John A. Williams, Texas prisoner # 559903, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous. Williams was convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
He alleged below that the attorney who represented him at trial
committed malpractice and breached his contract to represent
Williams because he provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40633
-2-
Williams also alleged that the Assistant District Attorney (ADA)
who prosecuted the case conspired with his attorney to deprive
him of a fair trial and to allow him to receive an excessive
sentence. The district court held that the ADA was entitled to
prosecutorial immunity and that the claims against Williams’
attorney were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
until such time as he was able to show that his conviction had
been invalidated.
Williams has abandoned his claim against the ADA by failing
to brief this issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He argues that the district court
improperly construed his complaint as a habeas action when it was
based on breach of contract and malpractice. Because Williams’
claims are based on his attorney’s alleged ineffective
assistance, they are barred by Heck because he has not shown that
his conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or
otherwise called into question. Therefore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’ complaint as
frivolous.
AFFIRMED.