IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-11171
Conference Calendar
HORACE LEE ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMY DON BOYDSTON;
JANE DOE, Randall County Asst. D.A.;
REBECCA KING; GLEASON, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:95-CV-268
- - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Horace Lee Rogers appeals the district court’s dismissal as
frivolous of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Eason v.
Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).
Rogers was not deprived of meaningful access to the courts.
Judge Gleason was absolutely immune from Rogers’s claim for
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-11171
-2-
damages resulting from the judge’s decision not to allow him to
participate in the work-release program and in the amount of bond
set. Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1995).
Rogers’s claim for damages against two employees of the
Randall County District Attorney’s Office is barred by absolute
prosecutorial immunity. Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Rogers’s arguments related to the validity of his conviction
and his parole constitute a challenge to his confinement and are
not cognizable under § 1983. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.
2364, 2372 (1994); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 148 (1995).
This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is
DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
Rogers is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Rogers is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.