IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60190
Conference Calendar
__________________
LAFELDT RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SANDRA DAVIS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94-cv-561LN
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has no arguable basis in
law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir.
1993); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
Section 1915(d) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Id. at 34.
Appellees Sanders, Wingate, and Peters are entitled to
absolute immunity from suit for damages in 42 U.S.C. § 1983
actions arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-60190
-2-
judicial and prosecutorial functions. Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d
279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994) (prosecutorial immunity); Graves v.
Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993) (judicial immunity).
Lafeldt Rudd's claims against the remaining defendants call into
question the validity of his conviction and sentence and may not
be considered in a § 1983 action, under the rule in Heck v.
Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), because Rudd has not
demonstrated that his conviction and sentence have been
invalidated.
There was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint
without providing Rudd with an opportunity to amend his pleadings
because it does not appear that the deficiencies in his pleadings
could be remedied through more specific pleading. See Eason v.
Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Under § 1915(d), Rudd
was not entitled to conduct discovery prior to dismissal of his
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 219, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Rudd is WARNED that the filing of frivolous appeals in the future
will result in the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.