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 th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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- 60691 C onfer enc e Cal endar DEM ARI O DONTEZ W AL KER Pl ai nt if f

- Appe l l ant
v. M I S S I S S I PP I PAROL E BOAR D; DEP UTY COM M I S S I ONER LORACOL E; CHR I S T OP HERB E P P S , C OMM I S S I ONE R, MI S S I SS I PPIDEPAR TM ENTOF CORRECT I ONS; CHI EFREC ORDS OFF I CER GLORIA GI BB 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 fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V
- 132 B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * D em ari o D on t ez W al ker, M i ssi ssi pp istat e p ri soner # L 162 5, app eal s f rom th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lof h i s 42 U . S . C . § 19 8 3 com p l a i n t f or failu re to state a c l ai m upon w hi c h re l i ef m ay be g rant ed. I n hi s c om pl ai nt , he ar gued that ( 1) hi s duepr o c e s s r i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d b y t he r e vo c at i o n o f hi s pa r o l e a nd the los s o f h is str e e t-tim e c re d it an d(2) M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 4 7- 7- 27 , w hi c h g o ve r ns United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60691

2 t h e pr o cedu re f

or parol e revocat i on , w as un constit u t i on al . A s r el i ef, W al ker s o u gh tr e i n s t a t e me n to f h i s t e r m o f

p a r o l e a n dt h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f h i s s t r e e t - t i me cred i t. Bec aus e s uc c e s s in W al ke r ’ s a c t i o n “w o ul d ne c e s s ar i ly de m o ns t r at e t he in v a lid ityo f c o n f

i n e m e n to rits d u r a tio n [,]” a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n is b a r r e d , a n dh is cl a i m s m u st be bro u gh t i n a h a b ea s corp u s p eti ti on . Wi lki n son v. D ot son , 544 U .S . 7 4 , 8 2 (2 0 0 5 ). T h e d is t r ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e c li n e d t o c o n s t r u e W a lk e r ’s com p l a i n t as ah a b ea s p eti ti on be ca u s e W a l k er fail edto exh a u st h i s state rem edi es. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssal f or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m w as t h eref ore p r o p e r . Se eHar r i sv . Hegm ann , 1 9 8 F .3d1 5 3 , 1 5 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). W a lk e r ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n d is fr iv o lo u s . S ee How ard v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). Itis th e r e fo r e d is m is s e d . S ee5 TH C IR . R . 42. 2. W al ker h as al ready been i n f orm ed th at h e ha s acc u m u l ated t h ree s tr ik e s u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). W a lk erv. No rw ood , No . 3 : 0 8- c v- 27 5- TSL- JCS, 2 0 0 9 W L 38 7 3 3 7 , at *1 ( S . D . M i ss. F eb . 13 , 20 0 9 ). W a l k e ris n o lon ge r ab l e to p r o c e e dinfo r m ap a u p e r is ina n yciv il a c tio n o ra p p e a l f i l e d w 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§ 1915( g) . I n or dert o a voi d th e i m pos i t i on o f an ad dit i o nals anc t i o n, W alke r s ho ul d r e vi e w any pe ndi ng ap pe al s anda c t i o ns a nd m ove t o di sm i ss an y t h at are f rivol ou s. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED .