P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20812 Su m m ar y Cal endar
LO RE N ZO E. TH O M AS , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. N AT H AN I EL Q U AR TE RM AN ; STEV E M I LLE R; JA N ICE H ER N AN D EZ; BI LLYJAC K SO N ; LI SA N ET TLE S , D efen da n 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 th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 3457

B ef ore W IE N E R , C L E M E N T , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * L o r e n z o E . T h o m a s , T e x a s p r is o n e r#6 5 4 2 4 0 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalw i t hp rej u di ce of h i s 42 U
. S

. C

. § 198 3 civi lri gh t s c om pl ai n tf or fai l u re t o st at e a cl ai m and t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s deni alo f hi s m o t i o n f

o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n, w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l yc o n s t r u e da s a r i s i n gu n d e rF e d e r a lR u l e o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 6 0 (b ). S ee2 8 U .S .C

. § § 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ), 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)

. I n hi s c om pl ai n t , T h om as al l egedt h at h is d u e p roces s r i gh t s w ere United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20812

2 vi ol ated du ri n g a pri son di sci pl i n ary proceedi n g, w h i ch r esul t ed i n a redu ct i on i n hi s c us t o di ala nd c l as s i f i c at i o n l e ve l s , 15 day s i n so l i t ar y c o nf i ne m e nt , a nd the f orf ei t u re of

730 day s of

good-t i m e c re di t s. H e sough tnom i n aldam ages, i nj u n ct ive rel i ef, com pen satory da m ages, an d p u n i t ive da m ages. O n app eal , T h om as argu es t h at hi s du e process ri gh t s w ere vi ol ated d u ri n g th e p r is o n disci p l i n a rypr oce ed i n g; he w a s u n l a w fully ch a rg edw i th
v i o l a t i n gp r i s o n r u l e s ; a n dh e w a s n e v e ri n p o s s e s s i o n o f a n yc o n t r a b a n d
. H e a rg u es th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt sh ou l dn ot h a ve d i sm i sse dh i s com p l a i n t prior to th e re s o lu tio n o f h is p e n d in gh a b e a s co r p u s p r o c e e d in g . S ee2 8 U
. S. C

. § 2254. Thom as f

ur t he ra r gue s , a s he di d i n hi s m o t i o n f o rr e consi de r at i o n, t hatno evi denc e s upport ed the di sc i pl i nary c onvic t i on. To t he e xt entthat Th om as al l ege d r ac i al di sc r i m i nat i on i n hi s c ivi l r i ght s c om pl ai nt , he has abandoned that is s u e b y fa ilin g to a r g u e it in h is b r ie f. Se eYoh eyv . Col l i ns , 985 F. 2d 222, 224- 2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). Thom as a s s e r t s , f

o rt he f i r s tt i m e o n a ppe al , t hata n i nm at e ’ s ri ghtt o due pr o c e s s i s v i o l at e d if t he he ar i ng o f

f i cer fai l s t o i nde pe nde nt l y as s e s s t he
r eli abil i t y o f

a c onf i dent i al i nf

or m ant , but Th om as doe s notex pl i c i t l y as se r tt hat a t i p f r o m ac o nf

i de nt i ali nf

o r m antpl ay e d ar o l e i n hi s di s c i pli nary c o nvic t i o n. Thom as al s o st at e s g e ne r all y, f o rt he f i r s tt i m e o n a ppe al , t hatpri s o ne r s fac i ng sol i t ary confi n em en tare entitled t o adv an ce w rit t en noti ce of t h e cl ai m ed
v io la tio n , aw r itt e n s ta te m e n t o f th e fin d e r s o f fa c t, a n da n o p p o r tu n ityto ca ll
w itn e s s e s a n dp r e s e n t d o c u m e n ta r ye v id e n c e . T h o m a s d o e s n o t s p e c ific a lly argu e, how ever, t h at h e w as den i ed these prot ect i on s orprovi de an y f u rt h er a r g u m e n t o n th e is s u e s . A lth o u g h th is co u r t lib e r a llyco n s tr u e s p r o s e b r ie fs , see Haines v. K

erner , 4 0 4 U
. S

. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ), the cou rt req u i res a rg u m en ts t o b e b r ie fe din o r d e rt o b e p r e s e rv e d
. S ee Y oh ey , 985 F
. 2d at 225. B ecau se t h ese i s s u e s a r e n o ta d e q u a t e l yb r i e fe d , w e w i l ln o tc o n s i d e rt h e m. W e re v ie w d is m is s a ls u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii) fo rfa ilu r e to s ta te acla im d e nov o, usi n g t h e sam e st an da rd ap pl i cabl e t o di sm i ssal s pu rsuan tt o F ED .N o. 08- 20812

3 R. C IV . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ). B lack v. W arren , 1 3 4 F
. 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 4 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 )

. T h e s a me s ta n d a r da p p li e s t o d is m is s a ls u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 Afo rfa ilu r e to s ta te acla im
. S ee B azr o w xv. S co tt , 136 F
. 3d105 3, 1 054 ( 5th C i r. 199 8)

. W e revi ew t h e den i alof
a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Fi rs t Na t i o nwi de Bank v. S u m m er Hou se Joi n tV enture , 9 0 2 F .2 d1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); F ED . R. C IV . P
. 6 0 (b ). B e c a u s eafa v o r a b l e ju d g m e n to n T h o m a s ’s c l a i m s w o u l dn e c e s s a rilyim p ly t he i n v a l i d i t y o f h i s d i s c i p l i n a r y c o n v i c t i o n f o r wh i c h h e wa s s e n t e n c e d t o t he fo r fe itu r e o f 7 3 0 d a y s g o o d -tim e c r e d its , T h o m a s ’ s c la im s a r e n o t c o g n iz a b le in a § 198 3 acti on un t i lh is convic t i on i n t h e di sci pl i n ary proceedi n g h as been
e x p u n g e d , r e v e r s e d , o ro th e r w is e s e t a s id e . S ee Heck v. Hu mph rey , 512 U
. S. 477, 4 8 6 -8 7 (1 9 9 4 ); E d w ard s v. B ali sok , 5 2 0 U .S . 6 4 1 , 6 4 8 (1 9 9 7 ); C larke v. S t alder , 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 9 (5th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (en b a n c). T h om a s d oe s n ot a rg u e th a t h is di s c i pli n a ryc o n v ic ti o nh a s b e e no ve r t ur ne d, e xp ung e d, o ro t he r w i s e i nva l i da t e d. R at her , he c onc ede s t hathe c hal l enged t he di sc i pl i nary c on victi on i n a § 2254 p etitio n . T h om a s’ s h a b ea s p eti ti on rem a i n s p en d i n g inthe distri ct cou rt. A lth o u g h T h o m a s s u g g e s ts th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ldn o t h a v e d is m is s e dh is civi l r i ght s c o m pl ai nt dur i ng t he pe nde nc y o f t he hab e as ac t i o n, “ no c ause of
a c ti o n [ e x i s t s ] u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 u n le s s a n du n til t h e co n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e is
r eve r se d, ex pun ged, i nval i dat ed, ori m pugned by t he gr antof a w r i tof

habeas corp u s. ” Heck , 5 12 U
. S. a t4 89
. The di s t r i c tc o u rtdi d no te r ri n di s m i s s i ng T h om a s’ s civilri gh ts com p l a i n t f or fail u re to s tate aclaim a n dd i dn ot a b u se it s d iscr e tion ind e n y in gR u le 6 0 (b ) re li e f. T h om as ’ s b r i e f, l ibe r all y c o ns t r ue d, r ai s e s t he i s s ue w he t he rt he di s t r i ct
cou rt erred i n dism i ssingh i s com p l a i n t w i th ou t all ow i n g h i m the op p ortu n i ty to f urt h er cl ar i f

y hi s al l egat i ons . A civi lr i ght s pl ai nt i f f s houl d be given an opp ort u n i t y t o am en d h i s com pl ai n tb ef ore i tis d i sm i ssed forfai l u re to st ate a
c la im
. Baz ro wx , 136 F
. 3d1 053 , (5t h C i r. 1 998 )

. A n y error , h ow ever, is ha rm l ess be c aus e t he a r gum e nt s Tho m as r ai s e d i n hi s m o t i o n f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n a nd theN o. 08- 20812

4 argu m en t s he rai ses on app ealdo n otsugg estt h at T h om as coul d h ave p revented t h e d i s mi s s a lo f

h i s c l a i ms w i t h f

urt herfac t ualdev el opm ent , w het hert hro ugh
an am ended c om pl ai nt , a S pears v. McCot t er , 7 6 6 F .2d1 7 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 ), h e a r in g , o ra q u e s tio n n a ir e . S ee Baz ro wx , 1 3 6 F .3 da t 1 0 5 4 ; T aylorv. Joh n son , 2 5 7 F .3d 4 7 0 , 4 7 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h om as’ s m ot i on t o hol d h i s app ea l in ab eyan ce pend i n g t h e di sposi t i on o f t h e h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n gi s DE NI ED
. T h e di st ri ct court’ s di sm i ssal of T h om as’ s com pl ai n t coun t s as a st rike f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387

- 88 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)

. T h om as i s cau t i on ed th at i f h e accum u la te s three
s tr ik e s , h e w ill n o lo n g e rb e a llo w e dto p r o c e e dinfo r m ap a u p e r is ina n yciv il act i on or ap pea lfil ed w h i l e h e i s det ai n ed or i n carcer ated i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e r o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (g). AF F I RMED; MO T I ON T O HOL D A P P EA L I N A BE YANC E DE NI ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED
.