IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20777
Summary Calendar
JACK WEST, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES H. KEESHAN, Judge; DANIEL C. RICE;
JEREMY T. HARTMAN; MARCIA CRONE, U.S. Magistrate;
LYNN HUGHES, U.S. District Judge;
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-975
--------------------
February 5, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jack West, Jr., appeals the denial of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 petition, in which he asserted that the defendants violated
his constitutional rights by denying him relief on his state
postconviction application and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
Defendants Keeshan, Hartman, and Johnson assert that West did not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20777
-2-
submit a timely notice of appeal. West’s postjudgment motions were
not filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, and they
therefore did not toll the running of the time for filing a notice
of appeal. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784
F.2d 665, 668-69 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc); FED. R. APP. P.; cf. FED.
R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). West’s notice of appeal, however, is
timely from the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motions.
West asserts that the district court erred in dismissing
his complaint under the in forma pauperis statute. Although West
had paid the filing fee, the error is harmless because the district
court could have dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274
(5th Cir. 1998).
West contends that the district court erred in denying
his motions for transfer of venue, based upon the potential bias of
the district court judges. He has not established that the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. See
Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 571 (5th Cir. 1999).
West concedes that the judicial and prosecutorial
defendants were absolutely immune from suit. See Boyd v. Biggers,
31 F.3d 279, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994). West also notes that he
dismissed the claims against defendant Johnson in the district
court. Therefore, any assertion that the district court erred in
denying relief on his claims for damages has been abandoned. See
No. 01-20777
-3-
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
(5th Cir. 1987).
West contends that the district court erred in denying
his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. Although the
doctrine of absolute immunity does not bar claims for equitable
remedies, see Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 525 (5th Cir.
1985), West is not entitled to such relief because he has not shown
that he is likely to face the same wrong in the future. See
Society of Separationists v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283, 1285 (5th Cir.
1992); Johnson v. Onion, 761 F.2d 224, 225-26 (5th Cir. 1985).
West has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in denying relief on his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion.
See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 38 F.3d
1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
West has also requested that this court grant him leave
to file a successive habeas petition. He has not established at
this time that he meets the requirements to do so under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b). Therefore, the request is DENIED.