IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40469
Conference Calendar
__________________
RONALD DALE ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANN RICHARDS and DAN
MORALES,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-94
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Alexander, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(IFP), argues that the magistrate judge and the district court
were racially biased in dismissing his civil rights complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Alexander argues that
former Texas Governor, Ann Richards, and Texas Attorney General,
Dan Morales, conspired with Grayson County, Texas, police and
prosecutors in wrongly charging and prosecuting him on fabricated
criminal charges.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-40469
-2-
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). To recover
damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that his conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question
by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).
Otherwise, such a claim for damages is not cognizable under
§ 1983 and must be dismissed. Id.
Alexander's claims are not cognizable, as he has failed to
demonstrate that his conviction has been set aside or otherwise
called into question. See id. As Alexander's civil rights
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint as
frivolous.
Because the appeal is patently frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
5th Cir. R. 42.2. Alexander is warned that the filing of further
frivolous appeals will result in the imposition of sanctions, and
this court cautions him to withdraw any pending frivolous
appeals.
APPEAL DISMISSED.