United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 24, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41702
Summary Calendar
JEFFERY WARREN SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D. CARNLEY; Lieutenant; NFN EVANS;
DONNA KLIGER, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CV-142
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffery Warren Sanders, Texas prisoner # 680206, appeals the
dismissal as frivolous of his pro se, in forma pauperis complaint.
Sanders has not repeated on appeal his assertions that he was
denied Saturday mail and a newspaper subscription while in the
Galveston County Jail or that his habeas claims were not properly
raised in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and these issues are
abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). His assertion that Donna Kliger
tampered with and misplaced legal documents is a theory raised for
the first time on appeal and is not reviewed by this court.
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999).
Sanders’s assertions that Kliger opened his legal mail outside
of his presence are insufficient to establish a claim of denial of
access to the courts. Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 826 (5th
Cir. 1993). Likewise, Sanders has not alleged a denial of access
to the courts as a result of the inadequacies in the Galveston
County Jail law library because he did not allege that his position
as a litigant was prejudiced. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-53
(1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing these claims as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Sanders also asserts that jail employees refused to correct
jail classification records showing that Sanders had received time
served for several bad-check charges, when in fact the charges had
been dismissed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing his civil rights challenges to these actions as barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). His allegations
implicate the invalidity of his parole revocation, and Sanders has
not demonstrated that his revocation has been invalidated. Heck,
512 U.S. at 487; Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div.,
68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district
2
court is therefore AFFIRMED.
Sanders has moved for correction and modification of the
record on appeal and for appointment of counsel. These motions are
DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
3