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- 40522 Su m m ar yC al endar
J ED S TE W ART L I NEBERRY , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. ANDREW S TOVE R, As s i s t a n tU. S
. At t o r n e y , ( I n d iv i d u a lCa p a c i t y) ; DANI EL P A U L M E A D E , A T F A g e n t, (I n d iv id u a l C a p a c ity), 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 E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C V
- 57
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 IA M: * Je d St e w ar tLi ne be r r y, fe de r alpr i s o ne r#1 02 96
- 07 8, i s a ppe al i ng t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is civ il rig h ts co m p la in t fo rfa ilu r e to s ta te acla im andf o rb e i ng f

r ivo l o us b as e d o n Heck v. Hu mph rey , 5 1 2 U .S
. 4 7 7 (19 9 4 ). Li ne be r r y ar gue s t hathe s ho ul d hav e be e n al l o w e d t o f i l e hi s o bj e c t i o ns t o t he m agi st r at e j udge’ s r epo r tand r ec om m endat i on o f di sm i ss alaf

t ert he t en- day United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40522

2 d ea d l i n e for d oin g so b eca u se h e w a s p l a ced i n seg reg a ti on an dde n i ed acce ss to al ll egal m ater i al s. L i n eberry adm i t t ed that he received noti ce of t hem agi s t r at ej udge’ s r eport o n M ar c h 2 7, 2 00 9, a nd h e di d no ts e e k a n e xt e ns i o n o f t i m e t o f

i l e hi s o bj e c t i o ns u n t i lseveralday s af t er t h e di st ri ctcourtentered a j u dg m en to f d ism issalon A pri l15, 200 9. Th u s, L i n eberry ha d the opp ort u n i t y t o t i m el y f i l e a m ot i on f

or e xt e ns i o n o f

ti m e, a n d he fail e d t o do s o unt i la f t e rt he c as e w as di s m i s s e d. Addi t i o nal l y, i n t he m o t i o n he f i l e d a f t e rdi s m i s s al , he fail e d t o s t at e a ny m eri t ori ou s obj ect i on s t o t h e m agis t rat e’ s r eport. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot abu se i t s di scr et i on i n den yi n g t h e m ot i on f or extensi on of t i m e t o f i l e obj ect i on s. F ED . R . C IV . P
. 6 (b ). Li ne b e r r yf

ur t he ra r g ue s t ha th e i s e nt i t l e dt o d a m a g e s b e c a us e h e was c har ge d a nd p r o s e c ut e d f o rbe i ng a fe l o n i n pos s e s s i o n of a f i r e ar m b as e d o n t he fal se t est i m on y of

an agen tan d h i s f

orm er w i fe. H e contends that t h e prosecutor di d n otdi scl ose a M em oran du m A greem en tt o t h e defen se t h at c ou l d h ave been u se dto im p e a ch th e tria l tes tim o n yo f h is fo rm e r w ife inv iola tion of B r ady v. Mar y land , 3 7 3 U .S
. 8 3 (19 6 3 ). A di s t r i c tc o ur tm aydi s m i s s apr i s o ne r ' s c o m pl ai nti f t he a c t i o n i s f

r ivo l o us o rm a lic io u s o rfa ils to s ta te acla im
. S ee28 U
. S. C. § 1 91 5A. W e r e vi e w t he d is tr ic t co u r t’s d is m is s a l d e n o v o . G eiger v. Jow ers , 4 04 F
. 3d 3 71, 3 73 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). I f Li ne be r r y’ s a l l e ga t i o ns ar e pr o ve d t o b e t r ue , t he y c o ul d un de r m i ne t he va l i di t y o f

hi s co nvi c t i o n fo rbe i ng a fe l o n i n po s s e s s i o n o f af i r e ar m . Pur s uant t o Heck , h e is b a r r e dfr o m s e e k in gre lie f u n til h e d e m o n s tr a te s th a t h is c o n v ic tio n h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d o r o th e r w is e in v a lid a te d
. Heck , 512 U
. S. at486- 8 7 ; St e phe ns o n v . Ren o , 28 F
. 3d 26, 27-28 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)
. H e ha s not don e so. T h u s, the distri ct cou rt did n ot err in d i sm i ssingthe com p l a i n t f or fail u re to st ate a c l ai m an d as f rivol ou s.N o. 09- 40522

3 L in e b e r r y ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u ta r g u a b le m e r it a n dis th u s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Ho wa r dv . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir .1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is d is m is s e d
. S ee5 t h C i r. R
. 42. 2. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof Li neber r y’ s c ivi lr i ght s l aw sui tan d thi s c our t ’ s di sm i ss alof t hi s appealc ountas tw o s tr ik e s fo rp u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). L in e b e r r y r e c e iv e d a th ir d s tr ik e a s are s u lt o f th is c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s al as f r ivo l o us o f hi s app eali n Li ne b e r r y v . U. S. , N o. 09- 10360 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). L in e b e r r yis th e r e fo r e b a r r e dfr o m p r o c e e d in gin fo r m a p a u p e r is i n a ny c ivila c t i o n o ra ppe alfi l ed w h i l e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d o rde t ai ne d i n a ny fa c ilityu n le s s h e is u n d e ri m m i n 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). AP PE AL DI S M I S S ED; 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( g) BAR I M POS ED