United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21258
Conference Calendar
ERIC CANTRELL HOLMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-3486
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
ERIC CANTRELL HOLMES (HOLMES), the alleged corporate entity
of which Eric Cantrell Holmes (Holmes), Texas prisoner # 78102,
is the authorized representative, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim. HOLMES also appeals the district
court’s denial of a FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend the judgment.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-21258
-2-
HOLMES contends that the district court erred by failing to
recognize it as a corporate entity separate and apart from
Holmes. HOLMES asserts that Janie Cockrell, the Director of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, is
violating its contractual rights by enforcing two judgments of
conviction against Holmes. The appellant’s implied contention is
that Holmes should be relieved of criminal liability under the
terms of his contract with HOLMES.
Even assuming that HOLMES exists as a corporate entity, we
find that these arguments are frivolous. Neither Holmes nor any
corporate entity could create an enforceable contract to avoid
the criminal liability stemming from the two judgments of
conviction against Holmes, the validity of which the appellant
does not question. Cf. Palma v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 79 F.3d
1453, 1462-63 (5th Cir. 1996); In re T.M., 33 S.W.3d 341, 347
(Tex. App. 2000).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.