Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21172/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21172-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21172

Conference Calendar

 

FABIAN SANTIAGO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARNITA MARTIN, Parole Officer, in her individual and

official capacity; ROSLYN HALL (HUBBARD), Parole Office

Supervisor, in her individual and official capacity;

ALBERT WEZT, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-1516

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fabian Santiago, formerly Texas inmate #719034, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals the dismissal for

failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

Santiago asserts that the appellees conspired to retaliate

against him because he complained about Parole Officer Arnita

Martin. Santiago contends that the appellees ensured that his

 Case: 03-21172 Document: 005137330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-21172

-2-

parole was revoked, and he argues that the revocation process

violated his constitutional rights. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Court

held that to recover damages for unconstitutional imprisonment, a

42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that his conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state

tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck applies

to parole revocation proceedings and to Santiago’s request for

injunctive relief. See Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91

(5th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177

(5th Cir. 1995).

Santiago has not challenged the district court’s reasons for

dismissing his complaint. Santiago thus has abandoned the only

issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d, 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993). 

Santiago’s appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous

and is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court’s dismissal of

Santiago’s complaint counts as a strike under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387

(5th Cir. 1996). Santiago is WARNED that if he accumulates three

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be able to

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

 Case: 03-21172 Document: 005137330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-21172

-3-

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

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 03-21172 Document: 005137330 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2004