United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41665
Summary Calendar
THOMAS FREDRICK BONNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BECKY MALONE CASTLOO; SHIRLEY GOODE EVANS; MARCUS TAYLOR;
CURTIS GLOVER; RANDY SCHAFFER; LAWRENCE MITCHELL,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CV-311
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Fredrick Bonner, Texas prisoner # 923741, appeals from
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which he sued two
court reporters, a district attorney, his trial counsel, his
appellate counsel, and his post-conviction counsel. Bonner alleged
that during his criminal proceedings the district attorney breached
his plea agreement, the court reporters inaccurately reported the
subsequent events at his sentencing, and all defendants conspired
to conceal the errors in the transcripts and to keep him
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41665
-2-
imprisoned. He sought as relief money damages, a jury trial, and
an order directing the court reporters to produce the tape
recordings of his criminal proceedings. The district court held
that Bonner’s suit was barred by limitations and dismissed the case
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
Bonner argues that the district court erroneously concluded
that his conspiracy claim was unsupported and failed to toll the
limitations period for various reasons. We conclude, however, that
Bonner’s claims, which are premised on the alleged breach of his
plea agreement, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence and are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994). The district court therefore did not err by
dismissing the complaint, but the judgment should be modified to
reflect a dismissal without prejudice. See Price v. City of San
Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2005); Sojourner T. v.
Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992).
Bonner also argues that the district court failed to grant a
motion to amend the complaint seeking to add a malicious
prosecution claim and that the district court erroneously dismissed
the case without providing him an opportunity to amend. The
district court did not reversibly err. See Jones v. Greninger, 188
F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1999); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d
789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986).
No. 05-41665
-3-
Bonner moves for the appointment of counsel, for injunctive
relief, and to correct the record. He also objects to the record
and moves to file a supplemental brief. These motions are denied.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.