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. 09-20545

Summary Calendar

RALPH O. DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; 179TH DISTRICT COURT; TEXAS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-580

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ralph O. Douglas, Texas prisoner # 1004998, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. He argues that the defendants violated his constitutional

rights by failing to address and rule on all of his state habeas claims. “This court

reviews a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all

well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2010
No. 09-20545

2

the plaintiffs.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir.

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Douglas argues that the defendants are not entitled to immunity from

liability because they misused their power and acted contrary to federal and

state law. Douglas has not shown that the defendants’ actions or inactions were

not judicial or prosecutorial in nature or that they were performed in the

complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121,

1124 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976).

Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that the defendants had

absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in the scope of their judicial

and prosecutorial duties. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980); see also

Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427-28.

Douglas also argues that because he is not challenging the legality of his

convictions or seeking damages for unconstitutional imprisonment, his action is

not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Douglas fails to

show that the district court erred in determining that his claims are barred by

Heck. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

Douglas’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 500 F.3d 401, 407 (5th Cir.

2007). Because at least three of his prior civil actions or appeals have been

dismissed as frivolous and count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Douglas

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); see Douglas v. Folsom, No.

9:01-CV-278 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2003); In re Douglas, No. H-03-1381 (S.D. Tex.

June 13, 2003), aff’d, No. 04-20089 (5th Cir. June 22, 2004)(dismissing appeal

as frivolous); In re Douglas, No. H-03-3955 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2003); Douglas v.

Cockrell, No. 6:03-CV-102 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2003). Douglas is WARNED that

any future frivolous filings will subject him to additional sanctions, including

Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2010
No. 09-20545

3

dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in

this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, as will the failure to

withdraw any pending matters that are frivolous. 

Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2010