Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 51051 Su m m ar yC al endar

H ER BE Y G AR CI A A RM EN D AR I Z , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. C H IE F O F P O L IC E , O dessa P ol i ce D epa rt m en t ; O f f i cer JO N E S ; O f

f i cer FR E DD I E NAY OLA , Na r c o t i c s I n v e s t i g a t o r ; O f f i c e rMA UE Y ; Ma y o rLA R RY M E LT O N , C i t y o f

O des sa , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 09- C V

- 96

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * H erbey G ar c i a Arm e nda r i z , f e deralpri soner # 793 66-180, m oves t h i s c ou rt t o p r o c e e d in fo r m a p a u p e r is (I F P ) in t h is a p p e a l fr o m t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

hi s 42 U

. S

. C

. § 1983 com pl ai n tas frivol ou s f or bei n g t i m e barred
an d/or as fai l i n g t o st ate a cl ai m u pon w h i ch r el i ef coul d be gran t ed u n der Heck
v. Hu mph rey , 51 2 U

. S

. 47 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ). T h e d i stri c t co u rt de n i ed h i s req u est to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 2, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-51051 Document: 00511128896 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2010N o. 09- 51051

2 pr o c e ed I FP on ap pe alc e r t i f yi ng t hatt he a ppe alw as no tt ak e n i n g o o d fai t h. A r m e n d a r iz ’s I F P m o t io n in th is c o u r tis a c h a ll e n g e to th e d i s t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c e r tific a tio n th a t h is a p p e a l is n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith

. S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F .3d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). In his I F P m ot i on , A rm en da ri z argues that t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d e n ia l of IFP st atus v i ol ated h i s ri gh tto d u e p roces s. B y fai l i n g t o a dd ress the bases f or t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c e r t i f i c at i o n de c i s i o n, he ha s a band o ne d t ho s e i s s ue s i n t he
c o n te x t o f th is IF P m o tio n . Se eYoh ey v . Col l i ns , 985 F

. 2d 222 , 224

- 25 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ); B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 81 3 F

. 2 d74 4 , 74 8 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). Th e d i s t r i c tc o urts uas p ont e de t er m i ned t hatA r m endar i z’ s c om pl ai ntw as f r ivol ous be c ause i tw as f i l ed af t ert he appl i c abl e t w o- y e a rli m it at i ons per i od had el apse d. The di st r i c tc our tal so c on cl uded t hatA r m endar i z’ s c om pl ai ntw as sub j ectt o di sm i ssalf or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m u pon w h i ch rel i ef m ay be gran t ed becau se i tw as barred u n der Heck

. W e need notdec i de w het hert he t w o b as es f ort he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss al of A rm en da ri z’ s com pl ai n t w ere proper becau se A rm en da ri z’ s cl aim s w ere ot her w i se s ubj ec tt o di sm i ss alf orfai l ure to st at e a cl ai m upon w hi c h re l i ef m ay b e g r a n te d

. Se eSo j o ur ne rT. v . Edw ar ds , 974 F. 2d 27 , 3 0 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) (h o ld in gth a t t h is co u r t c a n ty p ic a llya ffir m a d is tr ic t co u r t’s ju d g m e n t in a civ il
su i t on an y g rou n dtha t i s ap p a ren t f rom th e reco rd ). In the i n stan t com p l a i n t, A r m endar i z i s se eki ng dam ages f ort he w r ongf

uls ei zur e and l os s of

h i s pro per t y. T h e ra n d om an du n a u th or iz e di n ten ti on a lde p riva ti on of p rop ertybya sta te act or do e s no t c o ns t i t ut e a c ivi l

- r i ght s vi o l at i o n i f t he s t at e pr o vi des a
m e a n in g fu l p o s t-d e p r iv a tio n re m e d y . H u d son v. Palm er , 4 6 8 U

. S. 517, 533 (19 8 4 ). In T ex a s, the tort of con ve rsion f

u l fil l s th a t rem ed y re q u i rem en t. Mur phyv . Col l i ns , 26 F. 3d 541 , 543 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)

. A rm en da ri z’ s c l ai m based
u pon t h e sei zure an d conv ersi on of h i s p ropert y i s theref ore n ota ct i on able u n der § 1 9 8 3
. Se ei d. at543- 44. Case: 09-51051 Document: 00511128896 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2010N o. 09- 51051

3 A r m endar i z’ s m ot i on f orl eave f

orIFP on appeali s deni ed, and t he appea l is d is m is s e da s fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 n .2 4 ; 5 T H C IR
. R. 4 2. 2. The di st ri ct court’ s di sm i ssal of A rm en da ri z’ s § 198 3 com pl ai n t f or fai l u re t o st ate a cl ai m an d ou r di sm i ssalof t h i s app ealas f

rivol o u s b o th c ou n tas st ri kes f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se e Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387- 8 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). A rm e n d a riz h a s a t le a st tw o o th e r s trik e s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Arm e ndar izv. B u reau of Pr i s o ns , 3 5 5 F

. A p p ’ x8 5 9 , a t *1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). Bec aus e Arm e nda r i z has a c c um ul at e d a tl e as tt hr e e s t r i ke s und e r§ 1 91 5( g) , he
m a yn o lo n g e rp r o c e e dIF P in a n yciv il a c tio n o ra p p e a l file dw h ile h e is i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n a n y faci l i t y u n l ess h e i s un der i m m i n en tdan ger of
s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 191 5( g)

. A l so, i n l i gh tof A rm en da ri z’ s hi st ory of f i l i n g f rivol ou s pl ead i n gs, l aw sui t s, a n d h abea s c orpu s pet i t i on s, w e w arn Arm e nda r i z t hatf

r ivo l o us , re pe t i t ive , orot he r w i s e abus ive f i l i ngs w i l li nvi t e t he i m posi t i on of

sancti on s, i n cl u di n g di sm i ssal , m on et ary san ct i on s, an d/or restricti on s on h i s ab i l i ty to f i l e p l ea d i n gs i n this cou rt an dan y cou rt su b j ect to t hi s c o ur t ’ s j ur i s di c t i o n. I FP M OTI ON DENI ED; APP EAL D I S M I S S ED; 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( g) BAR I M P OS ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED

. Case: 09-51051 Document: 00511128896 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2010