IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10534
Conference Calendar
__________________
NORMAN DUANE WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RALPH H. WALTON, JR.; RICHARD HATTOX;
RONNIE BLASINGAME; and HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-00288
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norman Duane Watson appeals the judgment of the district
court dismissing as frivolous his civil rights action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights in the prosecution and
defense of his state conviction for murder. All of Watson's
claims alleging harm caused by the defendants implicate the
validity of his conviction. The gravamen of Watson's argument on
appeal is that the district court erred in dismissing the action
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10534
-2-
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) without permitting him to amend his
complaint or requiring the defendants to respond.
"[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for
challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments."
Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). In order to
recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid, the "plaintiff
must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called
into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus." Id.
It does not appear that Watson's "insufficient factual
allegations might be remedied by more specific pleading. Eason
v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). Watson took the
opportunity to plead his best case in 16 pages of facts in 49
paragraphs in his complaint. See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d
789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, Watson does not identify any
additional facts in his brief that he would have alleged if he
had been given the opportunity. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing the case without giving Watson an
opportunity to amend. Eason, 14 F.3d at 9.
Before reaching the Heck analysis, it is appropriate to
consider whether the doctrine of absolute immunity applies. See
Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). "Criminal
prosecutors . . . enjoy absolute immunity from claims for damages
asserted under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for actions taken in the
No. 95-10534
-3-
presentation of the state's case." Id. at 285. "This broad
immunity applies even if the prosecutor is accused of knowingly
using perjured testimony." Id. Watson's allegations that Hattox
influenced prospective witnesses and suborned perjury do not
destroy the prosecutor's absolute immunity. See id. The
district court's dismissal of the claims against Hattox was
proper.
It is unnecessary to address Watson's remaining claims
because they are not cognizable under § 1983. In his complaint,
Watson alleged that his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal
and that state habeas relief was denied by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. Watson did not allege that he has filed a
federal application for writ of habeas corpus, but he stated that
a writ of mandamus was pending in the district court "in lieu of
the said state habeas corpus." By his own allegations, Watson
concedes that his conviction has not been reversed, expunged,
invalidated or impugned; therefore, he "has no cause of action
under § 1983." Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2373.
The district court did not abuse its discretion dismissing
the action as frivolous. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964
F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.