Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20042/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20042

Summary Calendar

BRANDON M. CONWAY,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY DON HECKER; 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

 Institutional Division, Records Department; 

BOT WAREHOUSE; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-3580

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Conway, Texas prisoner # 01777537, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

suit for redress against the attorney who was appointed to represent him in 

his criminal proceedings and to challenge the veracity of information in his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20042 Document: 00513280304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
No. 15-20042

2

records and the use of those records in his parole proceedings. The district 

court dismissed the suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and this appeal ensued. 

Review is de novo. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Consideration of the record, Conway’s filings, and authority shows no error in 

the judgment. 

Conway’s contention that the district court should not have dismissed 

his suit under § 1915(e)(2)(B) because he wanted to pay the filing fee is undermined by the record, which shows that he asked the court for authorization to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). His argument that the court erred by not 

considering certain claims is unavailing, because the entry of judgment of dismissal shows that the court rejected all the claims raised therein. See Soffar 

v. Dretke, 368 F.3d 441, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2004). The rest of Conway’s arguments likewise lack merit.

To raise a valid § 1983 claim, one must show that a state actor infringed 

his constitutional rights. Doe v. Rains Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 

1406 (5th Cir. 1995). Court-appointed attorneys are not state actors for § 1983 

purposes when they are performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel 

in a criminal proceeding. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317–18 (1981). 

Because Conway’s claims against the lawyer arise from that attorney’s representation in the criminal proceedings, the district court did not err in dismissing them. See id.

Because Texas law and regulations do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole, Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 305 (5th 

Cir. 1997); Creel v. Keene, 928 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1991), Texas prisoners 

cannot attack any state parole-review procedure on due-process grounds, 

Johnson, 110 F.3d at 308. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 

 Case: 15-20042 Document: 00513280304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
No. 15-20042

3

dismissing the claims concerning the procedures used to deny parole and the 

denial of parole. See Doe, 66 F.3d at 1406. Finally, Conway has no constitutional right to the removal of information from his prison record even if it is 

false. See Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420, 421–22 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Conway has demonstrated no error in connection with the judgment, nor 

has he shown that we should grant his motions for appointed counsel and 

injunctive relief. Consequently, the judgment is AFFIRMED, and all outstanding motions are DENIED.

Additionally, Conway is informed that the affirmance of the dismissal 

counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Coleman v. Tollefson, 

135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015). Conway is cautioned that if he accumulates 

three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or 

appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 15-20042 Document: 00513280304 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2015