* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20814

Conference Calendar

JOHN ADI

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Houston Division; WILLIE

GREASON, JR, Chief Deputy, United States Marshals Service, Houston

Division; JOHN DOE, #1, Unknown Employee of the United States Marshals

Service, Houston Division; JOHN DOE, #2, Unknown Employee of the United

States Marshals Service, Houston Division; JANE DOE, #1, Unknown Employee

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Southern District Office within Dallas, or

Cedar Springs Office; ROBERT LACY, JR, Warden, CCA/Liberty County Jail,

Liberty,TX; JANE DOE, #2, Unknown Employee ofthe Corrections Corporation

of America Stationed at the CCA/Liberty County Jail, Liberty, TX; JOHN DOE,

#3, Unknown Employee of the Corrections Corporation of America Stationed at

Liberty, Texas 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-3032

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20814

2

John Adi, federal prisoner # 24680-079, appeals the dismissal as frivolous

of his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971) action. He alleged that he was unlawfully incarcerated against

his will and without a valid judicial commitment order and that the defendants

caused him to be illegally arrested and confined. He further asserted state law

claims of false arrest and imprisonment. The district court found that Adi’s

claims necessarily implicated the validity of his confinement and were barred by

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and dismissed the complaint as frivolous.

This court reviews a dismissal of a prisoner complaint as frivolous for abuse of

discretion. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). A complaint is

frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis in law or fact.” Id.

Adi maintains that because the gravamen of his complaint is that the

defendants arrested him without authority and while still on a valid bond and

thereafter illegally confined him, the allegations of his complaint do not

necessarily implicate the validity of his underlying conviction and sentence and

are thus not barred by Heck. 

Adi is correct that a claim of “unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not

necessarily implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following the arrest.”

Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1994). However, a judgment in

favor of Adi would necessarily implicate the duration of his confinement. See

Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Adi’s claims

clearly implicate the fact and duration of his confinement and because he has not

alleged that his conviction or sentence has been reversed or expunged, his claims

are barred by Heck. Since all of Adi’s federal claims were properly dismissed,

the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Adi’s supplemental

state law claims. See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Adi has not shown thatthe district court erred in dismissing his complaint

as frivolous, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We note that the

district court’s dismissal of Adi’s complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under
No. 07-20814

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.

1996). Adi has already accumulated two prior strikes. See Adi v. Management

& Training Corp., No. 07-11139, 2008 WL 2468474 (5th Cir. June 19, 2008)

(unpublished). Further, we are imposing another strike in Adi v. Knot, No. 07-

20875, decided today. Because Adi has at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he

is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.