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 UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10083 Su m m ar y Cal endar RUSS EL L J AY REGER Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. J AM ES K W AL KER; OUI DA S TE VENS ; HON O RA BLE ROGER J EF FR EY W AL KER; HON OR AB LE CLYDE R AS HW ORTH; HON ORABL E KEL LYG M O O RE ; AN TH O N Y G BR O CA TO ; TAR RA N T CO U N TYTEXAS R espon den 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 N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- M C

- 33 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R u ssel lJay R eger, T exas pri soner # 747 783 , app eal s t h e den i al of hi s F ED . R. C IV . P. 27 pe t i t i o n t o pe r pe t uat e t e s t i m o ny s o t hat he m ay cha l l en ge t he l egali t y o f

hi s m urde rc onvi c t i on. W e r evi ew t he deni alof t hatpet i t i on f

oran a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Pet i t i on of Pri ce , 7 2 3 F .2 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10083

2 A tt h e t im e R eger f

i l ed h i s pet i t i on , R u l e 27 provided i npert i n en tpart t hatt he pet i t i on m ust“ sho w . . . t hatt he pet i t i onerex pects to b e a par t y t o a n ac t i on c ogni zabl e i n a c our t of t he U ni t ed St ates. ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 2 7 (20 0 7 ). Rul e 27 ne c e s s ar i l y r e quir e s t hatt he a nt i c i pa t e d a c t i o n b e c o gni z ab l e o nl y i n a fe d e r a l co u r t. S ee D res ser Ind u s. I n c. v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 59 6 F . 2 d12 3 1 , 12 3 8 ( 5 th C i r . 1979) . Reger , how eve r , has notm ade t he r equi r ed s how i ng. R e g e rco n te n d s th a t h is tr ia l ju d g e w a s u n q u a lifie d t o p r e s id e o v e rh is m urde rt ri a lb eca u se t he j udge had notye tt aken t he o at h of of f i c e, t her eby r e n d e r in gR e g e r ’ s ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic ti oni n va lid . R e g e rco n te n d s th a t t h is cla im r ai se s fede r alcons t i t ut i onali ss ues an d i s c ogni zabl e o n 28 U . S. C . § 2254 and 42 U . S. C . § 1983 r evi ew . Reger , w ho has al r eady unsucc es sf ul l y s ou gh t § 2254 reli ef, con ced es th a t he h a s n ot ex h a u stedthis c la i m i n state cou rt. C ons equent l y, s houl d he t r y t o r ai se t hatc l ai m i n a s ec ond § 2254 pr oc ee di ng, it w o u lde ith e rb e h e ldp r o c e d u r a llyb a r r e d , seeNobles v. Joh n son , 127 F. 3d 409, 4 2 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), o rd is m is s e da s s u c c e s s iv e . S ee2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2)(A), ( B ) , (b) ( 3) (A) . H i s c l ai m , w h et h er f or dam ages, declaratory j u dg m en t , or i nj u n ct ive rel i ef, i s si m i l arl y n otcogn i zable i na § 198 3 acti on becau se iti m pl i es t h e i n vali di t y of

hi s c on vi ct i on , an d h e ha s not show n hi s c on vi ct i on t o ha ve been o v e r tu r n e do ro th e r w is e d e c la r e din v a lid . S ee Heck v. Hu mph rey , 512 U . S. 477, 4 8 6 (1 9 9 4 ); seealso E d w ard s v. B ali sok , 5 2 0 U .S . 6 4 1 , 6 4 8 (1 9 9 7 ); Kutz nerv. Mo n tgo m eryCo u n ty , 3 0 3 F .3 d3 3 9 , 3 4 0 -4 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). AF F I RMED.