IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30845
Conference Calendar
__________________
FRANKLIN D. FRAZIER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARMAGNE PADUA,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CV-2272
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Franklin D.
Frazier, Jr., filed a complaint alleging that Orleans Parish
Assistant District Attorney, Charmagne Padua, committed the crime
of filing false public records, in violation of La. Rev. Stat.
Ann. 14:133. Frazier alleges that, in response to a habeas
petition he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Padua's brief
to the district court misquoted a state statute governing
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-30845
-2-
habitual offender law and that she thus filed a false public
record.
A complaint brought IFP may be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has no arguable basis in
law or fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993).
Section 1915(d) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 1992).
Frazier's attempt to have Padua somehow charged for a
violation of state law likely would have no merit even if the
statute had been misquoted. Here, there was no misstatement, as
article 61 of Louisiana's Criminal Code states:
Subject to the supervision of the attorney
general, as provided in Article 62, the district
attorney has entire charge and control of every
criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his
district, and determines whom, when, and how he shall
prosecute.
La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 61 (West 1991). Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Frazier's action as frivolous.
Although Frazier has not been warned about frivolous
appeals, see Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 985 (1988), the instant appeal is plainly
frivolous. Accordingly, we warn Frazier that sanctions will be
imposed for any future frivolous appeals.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.