Case ID: f-appx_251/html/0901-01.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

Kenneth Ray BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. OFFICE OF the CLERK OF the 10TH SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS at Waco, Texas, Sharri Roessler, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-51605
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2007.
    Kenneth Ray Brown, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Brown, Texas prisoner # 334618, appeals the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a cause of action. He argues that the Office of the Clerk of the 10th Supreme Court of Texas at Waco, Texas, violated his due process rights by failing to comply with its duty under Texas law to notify Brown’s appellate counsel of record that his case had been remanded.

However, because Brown’s claims necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction, and because Brown has not shown that his conviction has been reversed or expunged, the district court properly eon-eluded that his claim was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

The district court dismissed a prior civil rights case filed by Brown as frivolous. See Brown v. Wallace, No. H-03-0827 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 25, 2005). That dismissal and the district court’s dismissal of this civil rights claim as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Brown is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.