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 precede nt except under the limit ed 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- 20486 Su m m ar yC al endar

C R A IG E M E N D E N H A L L , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t,
ve r s us CH AR LE Y VAL D EZ; RE BE CC A PR I CE ; PAM EL A W I LLI AM 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 t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 4: 08- C V

- 3255

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: *
C r a igM e n d e n h a ll, T e x a s p r is o n e r#3 5 9 1 9 7 , a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is c iv il rig h ts a c tio n fo rfa ilu r e to s ta te a c la im o n w h ic h r e lie f m a y b e g r a n te d
. H is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 21, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20486 Document: 00511087063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 09- 20486

2 c l a i ms a r e b a s e d o n h i s e l i g ib i l i t yf o rr e l e a s e o n ma n d a t o r ys u p e r v i s i o n . H e seeks decl arator y an d i nj u n c t ive rel i ef an d com pen sator y an d p u n i t ive da m ages. T h e di sm i ssalof

a com pl ai n tun der ru le 1 2(b) ( 6) of t h e F ederalR u l es of Cri m i nalPr o c e dur e i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . I n reK a tri n a CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F
. 3d 191 , 205 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)
. Apl ai n t i f f fai l s t o st ate a cl ai m on w h i ch rel i ef can be gra n ted w h ere the com p l a i n t do es n ot con tain “en ou gh facts to state a cl a i m to rel i ef t h a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 550 U
. S. 5 44 , 5 70 ( 20 07 )
. Thi s c o ur tm aya f f i r m t he j udg m e nto n a ny gr o und s upp o r te d b yth e re c o r d
. Soj o ur ne rT. v . Edw ar ds , 9 7 4 F .2d 2 7 , 3 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). M endenhal lar gues t hatt he di st r i c tcour terr ed i n i t s det er m i nat i on t hat hi s c l ai m s ar e t i m e- b a rred , a nd he c ont ends t hathe has s t at ed c ons t i t ut i onal c l ai m s o n whi c h re l i e f ca n be gr ant e d. H i s a s s e r t i o ns a m o untt o a n a t t ac k o n t he vali di t y of

deter m i n ati on s m ad e by th e T e x a s D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce ( “ T D C J”) regardi n g h i s el i gibi l i t y f o rr e l e as e o n m and ator y sup ervi si on . “ [W ] h en a s t at e pr i s o ne ri s cha l l e ngi ng t he ve r y fac tordur at i o n of hi s phys i c ali m pr i s o nm en t, an d the reli ef he see k s i s a de term i n a ti on tha t he i s en ti tl ed to i m m ed i a te r e le a s e o r a s p e e d ie r r e le a s e fr o m th a t im p r is o n m e n t, h is s o le fe d e r a l re m e d yis
a w ri t of

h a b ea s corp u s. ” Prei serv. R od rigu ez , 41 1 U
. S. 47 5, 49 9 ( 19 73 )
. M e nde nhal lc anno t s e e k an e ar l i e r r e l e as e f r o m pr i s o n i n a c ivi l r i ght s a c t i o n, s o he c a n n o t o b ta in d e c la r a to r ya n d inju n c tiv e re lie f. Se ei d. M en den h a llli kew i se c an n otobtai n m on et ary da m ages on hi s c l ai m s r egar di ng t he c or r ec t nes s of det er m i nat i ons on hi s el i gibi l i t y f orr el eas e o n m andat o r ys u p e r v i s i o n . W h e r e , i n a s t a t e p r i s o n e r ’ s s u i tf o rd a m a g e s u n d e r4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 3 , “a ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e p la in tiff w o u ld n e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid it y o f hi s c o nvi c t i o n o rs e nt e nc e . . . t he c o m pl ai nt m us tb e di s m i s s e d un l e s s t he p la in tiff

c a n d e m o n s tr a te t h a t th e c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e h a s a lr e a d yb e e n in v a lid a ted
. ” Heck v. H u mph rey , 51 2 U
. S
. 47 7 , 48 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ). B eca u se M en d e n h a ll can n otshow t h at t h e T D C J’ s determ i n ati on regardi n g h i s el i gibi l i t y f or r el ease o n m a n d a to ry su p e rv ision h a s be e n in v a li d a te d , u n d e r th e p rin cip les of Heckhe Case: 09-20486 Document: 00511087063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 09- 20486

3 can n otm ai n t ai n a su i tford am ages u n der § 1 983 based on t h ose det erm i n ati on s. S ee McG rew v. T

ex. B d
. o f Pa rd o n s & Parol es , 47 F
. 3d 158 , 160
- 61 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 5 ).M en d en h a l larg u es th a t t h e d i stri ct cou r t e r r e d i n de n yin g h i m l ea ve to am en d h i s c om pl ai n tun der rul e 15 of the F ederalR u l es of C ri m i n alP rocedure. Bec aus e he i s pr e c l ude d f r o m pur s ui ng t he c l ai m he s o ugh tt o a dd, a m e ndm e nt w o u l d h a v e b e e n fu tile , a n d th e co u r t d id n o t r e v e r s ib lye r rin d e n y in git. S ee A vatar Explor ati on , I n c. v. Ch evron, U
. S
. A
. , I n c. , 933 F
. 2d 314 , 321 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D
. T h e m o t io n fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l is D E N IE D
. S ee Ul m er v. Ch an cel lor , 6 9 1 F .2 d2 0 9 , 2 1 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alf o rfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m c o unt s a s o ne s tr ik e fo rp 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 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) ; § 1915( e) ( 2) (b) (i i)
. M endenhal li s her eby w ar ned t hat i f he a c c um ul at e s t hr e e s t r i ke s , he m ayno tpr o c e e d in for m ap a u p er is i n any c ivi lact i on or ap pea lfi l ed w h i l e h e is incarcer ated or detai n ed 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 ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). Case: 09-20486 Document: 00511087063 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2010