Jackson v. Dallas County

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                              No. 96-11381
                          Conference Calendar



JOSEPH JACKSON,

                                           Petitioner-Appellant,


versus

DALLAS, COUNTY OF;
Court 255, George Allen
Building; STATE OF TEXAS,
State Capitol Building,
Austin, Texas,

                                           Respondents-Appellees.


                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 3:96-CV-2757-T
                        - - - - - - - - - -
                          August 15, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Joseph Jackson, purportedly acting on behalf of the United

States, argues that the district court erred in denying his

petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to Dallas County

and the State of Texas.



     *
        Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
                            No. 96-11381
                                - 2 -

     Jackson has not demonstrated that the district court had the

authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the State or the County.

See Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F.2d

383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971).

     Jackson argues for the first time on appeal that he was

illegally arrested by Dallas County authorities.     If an appellant

shows clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights,

this court has discretion to correct a forfeited error that

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings.    See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d

160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).     Issues raised for the

first time on appeal that involve factual determinations that

could have been resolved in the district court generally do not

rise to the level of plain error.   Robertson v. Plano City of

Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).     A determination of

Jackson’s illegal arrest claim would require the resolution of

factual issues that were not presented in the district court.

This issue is not subject to plain error review.

     Because Jackson has failed to raise an issue of arguable

merit, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.     See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

     Jackson’s motion to enter nunc pro tunc order correcting

clerical errors in his brief is GRANTED.

     APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION GRANTED.