United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20520
Summary Calendar
BILLY GEORGE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
R. CLEER; A. HICKSON, Major; J. CANTU;
J. WEAVER; D.M. RICE, Captain;
JACKIE DUPREE; SUSAN L. SCHUMACHER;
MARISCAL, Officer; VAQUERA, Sergeant;
M. JONES, Grievance Supervisor; H. WESTON,
Assistant Warden; K. PRICE, Senior Warden.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-2315
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy George Williams, Texas prisoner # 840708, confined in
the Northern District of Texas, appeals the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint (seeking damages and declaratory relief) as frivolous.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
On appeal, Williams alleges that he was wrongly charged and
convicted of extortion, that while being housed at the high
security prison he suffered mental and emotional anguish and was
not allowed contact visits, church services, proper exercise, hot
food, portions of food, television, and access to the law library,
and that there was a retaliatory hold on his inmate account.
A district court may dismiss as frivolous a prisoner’s IFP
complaint if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d
716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999); see also section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(allowing dismissal of IFP action if frivolous). “A complaint
lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the
violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.”
Harper, 174 F.3d at 718 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). This court reviews the district court’s dismissal of a
frivolous complaint for abuse of discretion. Id.
Williams sues various prison employees who participated in his
July 23, 2002 prison disciplinary conviction at the Ellis Unit in
the Southern District of Texas. Williams asserts that he was
wrongly charged and convicted of extortion. Because a favorable
judgment as to Williams’s claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of Williams’s disciplinary conviction at which he was
sentenced, inter alia, to loss of 750 days good time credit,
2
Williams cannot bring a section 1983 action attacking his
disciplinary proceeding and seeking damages until his conviction in
those proceedings has been expunged, reversed, or otherwise set
aside. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th
Cir. 1998) (en banc).
Williams also contends that thereafter, while being housed at
the Clements High Security Prison in the Northern District of
Texas, he suffered mental and emotional anguish and was not allowed
contact visits, church services, proper exercise, hot food,
portions of food, television, and access to the law library. The
district court dismissed these claims after determining that the
claims and parties were improperly joined and that the claims were
filed in the wrong venue.
Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this court requires
arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Williams
has not argued the factual basis for the district court’s dismissal
of these claims, Williams has waived that issue on appeal, see
Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999), and this
court need not address it. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Williams further asserts that there is a retaliatory hold on
3
his inmate account. A claim of retaliation under section 1983
requires an inmate to “allege the violation of a specific
constitutional right and be prepared to establish that but for the
retaliatory motive the complained of incident . . . would not have
occurred.” Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Personal beliefs
and conclusional allegations are not sufficient. Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999). “The inmate must
produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable
scenario, allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may
plausibly be inferred.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Williams’s claim of retaliation fails to meet these
requirements.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing Williams’s claims as frivolous.
However, we modify the judgment of dismissal as follows: as to
the claims relating to or complaining of the prison disciplinary
conviction, the dismissal is without prejudice to refiling at such
time as that conviction has been expunged, reversed or otherwise
set aside, see Stalder at 191; as to the claims concerning matters
at the Clements High Security Prison, the dismissal is without
prejudice to refiling in the Abilene Division of the Northern
District of Texas.
The district court’s judgment, as so modified, is AFFIRMED.
4
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
5