IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60121
Conference Calendar
__________________
LAFELDT RUDD
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALICE JAMES; BARBARA DUNN;
REGINA RUDD; F. KENT STRIBLING;
EDDIE TUCKER; and WILLIAM F. COLEMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94cv239BN
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lafeldt Rudd appeals the district court's dismissal of his
civil rights complaint as frivolous. Rudd contends that he is
the victim of a conspiracy to incarcerate him in violation of his
constitutional rights. We have reviewed the record, the district
court’s opinion, and appellant’s brief and discern no reversible
error.
“[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for
challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.”
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-60121
-2-
Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). In order to
recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid, the “plaintiff
must prove that the 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.” Id. Rudd’s claims against Alice James, B. Dunn, F.
Kent Stribling, and Eddie Tucker call into question the validity
of his conviction and sentence and may not be considered in a §
1983 action under the rule in Heck because Rudd has not
demonstrated that his conviction and sentence have been
invalidated.
Additionally, the claims against Dunn, Stribling, and Tucker
are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. See Travelers
Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195
(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1696 (1995). Rudd has
filed two prior appeals, from civil rights actions filed by Rudd
against Dunn, Stribling, and Tucker. Both cases involved the
same basic legal contention and were disposed of by this court on
the merits. See Rudd v. Davis, No. 95-60190 (5th Cir. Oct. 18,
1995); Rudd v. Dunn, No. 94-60566 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 1995).
The dismissal of the claims against William F. Coleman and
Regina Rudd is affirmed for reasons stated by the district court.
We hold that Rudd’s appeal is frivolous, and, accordingly,
we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Rudd was warned in
Rudd v. Davis, No. 95-60190 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 1995), that
No. 95-60121
-3-
additional frivolous appeals would result in the imposition of
sanctions. Rudd is hereby BARRED from filing any pro se, in
forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in
forma pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is
subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written
permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court
and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are
directed to return to Rudd, unfiled, any attempted submission
inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.