IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50295
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES LEE SWEED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
73rd LEGISLATIVE OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. CA-EP-95-164
- - - - - - - - - -
August 24, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Lee Sweed appeals the dismissal of his civil rights
suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A complaint filed in forma
pauperis may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in fact or law. A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465,
468 (5th Cir. 1992).
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-50295
-2-
Claims alleging "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid" cannot be brought
under § 1983 unless that "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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v.
Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Heck applies to
proceedings which call into question the fact or duration of
parole. Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 15, 1995) (No. 94-9704).
Sweed does not allege that his sentence or any revocation
proceeding has been reversed, expunged or set aside by a state
court, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it dismissed his complaint pursuant to
§ 1915(d).
AFFIRMED.