Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John M. RICKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Larry D. HOLDER, Marvin L. Nickels, Floyd D. Williams, Donley W. Brothers, Michael A. Lansing, Steven Andraschko Grand, Lieutenant Colonel, Virginia Dolinski, Ned Istas, Theresa Grenier, T. Rausch, C. Daniels, John and Jane, Persons presently unknown to Plaintiff who were members of the February 19, 1997 Assignment Board, or who acted in concert therewith, Sued in their individual capacities only, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-50918
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 24, 2003.
    John M. Ricks, Titusville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John M. Ricks, a former military prisoner, challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil action raised under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). He contends that the district court wrongly concluded that his challenge to the extension of his prison stay by 59 days violated Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) and that the court erred in its alternative ruling that the complaint was filed outside the two-year limitations period. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997).

Ricks also contends that the district court improperly imposed against him a $150 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f), despite the fact that Ricks was no longer a prisoner. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in imposing costs. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir.1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.