Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed 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- 20545 Su m m ar yC al endar RA LPH O . D O U G LA S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant v. HARRI S COUNTY DI S TR I CT AT TORNEY ; 1 79 TH D I STR I CT CO U RT ; TEXAS CO U RT O F CR I M I N AL APP EA LS , 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 Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C V - 580 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R a lp h O . D o u g la s , T e x a s p r is o n e r#1 0 0 4 9 9 8 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 act i on f or fai l u re to st ate a cl ai m u pon w h i ch r el i ef m ay be gr ant ed. H e a r gues t hatt he def endant s vi ol at ed hi s c ons t i t ut i onal ri gh t s by fai l i n g t o ad dress an d r u l e on al lof hi s s t ate hab eas cl ai m s. “ T h i s c ou rt r e v ie w s a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l u n d e rR u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d e n o v o , a c c e p tin ga ll w ell -plead ed fa cts as tru e a n d view i n g th ose fa cts i n the l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2010N o. 09- 20545

2 th e p l a i n ti ffs. ” D orsey v. Po rtfo lio E qu i t i es, I n c. , 540 F . 3d 333 , 338 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). D ou gl as argu es t h at t h e defen da n t s are n otenti t l ed to i m m u n i t y f rom l i ab i l i t y be c aus e t he y m i s us e d t he i rpo w e ra nd a c t e d c o nt r ar y t o fe de r ala nd st ate l aw . D ou gl as h as n otsh ow n tha tthe defenda n t s’a ct i on s or i n act i on s w ere no tj udi c i alo rpr o s e c ut o r i ali n na t ur e o rt hatt he y w e r e p erf o r m e d i n t he c o m p le te a b s e n c e o f a ll ju r is d ic tio n . S ee Mali n a v. G on zal es , 994 F. 2d 1121, 1 1 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); s e eals o Im ble rv . Pac ht m an , 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 2 7 -2 8 (19 7 6 ). Th er ef or e, t he di st r i c tc our tdi d noter ri n hol di ng th a t th e de fendant s had abs ol ut e i m m uni t y f r om l i abi l i t y f

or ac t i ons t aken i n t he sc ope of t hei rj udi c i al a n d p r o s e c u to r ia l d u tie s . SeeD e nni s v. Sparks , 4 4 9 U .S . 2 4 , 2 7 (1 9 8 0 ); seealso Im bl er , 424 U . S. at427- 28. D o u g la s a ls o a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e h e is n o t c h a lle n g in gt h e le g a lity o f h is c o n v ic tio n s o rs e e k in g d a m a g e s fo r u n c o n s tit u tio n a l im p r is o n m e n t, h is a c tio n is notbar r ed by Heck v. H u mph rey , 51 2 U . S . 47 7 , 48 6 -87 (19 9 4 ). D ou glas fail s to sho w t hatt he di st r i c t c our t er r ed i n det er m i ni ng t hat hi s c l ai m s ar e b ar r ed by Heck . S ee Heck , 512 U . S. at486- 87. D oug l a s ’ s a p p e a l i s wi t ho ut a r g ua b l e m e r i t a nd i s DI SM I SS ED as fr iv o lo u s . S ee Zarn ow v. C i ty of Wi chit a Falls, T

ex. , 500 F . 3d 401 , 407 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) . B ecau se atl east t h ree of hi s pri or c ivi lact i on s orapp eal s hav e been di sm i ss ed as f

r i vol ous and c ountas s t r i kes under 28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) , D ougl as i s barred f

rom proceed i n g i n f

orm a pa u peri s i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w hi l e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d o rde t ai ne d i n a ny fac i l i t y unl e s s he “ i s und e ri m m i ne nt d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y .” § 1 9 1 5 (g); see D ougl as v. F olsom , N o. 9 :0 1 -C V -2 7 8 (E .D . T e x . S e p t. 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 ); I n r eD o uglas , N o. H - 03- 1381 ( S. D . Tex. J u n e 13 , 2 0 0 3 ), aff’d , N o. 04- 20089 ( 5t h C i r . June 22, 2004) ( di sm i ss i ng appeal a s fr iv o lo u s ); I

n r eD o uglas , N o . H -0 3 -3 9 5 5 (S .D . T e x . O c t. 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 ); D ouglas v. Co ck re ll , N o. 6: 03- C V - 102 ( E . D . T ex. D ec . 3, 2003) . D ougl as i s W A R N E D t hat anyf ut ur e f r i vo l o us f

i l i ngs w i l ls ubj ec thi m t o a ddi t i o nals anc t i o ns , i nc l udi ng Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2010N o. 09- 20545

3 d is m is s a l, m o n e ta r ys a n c tio n s , a n d re s tr ic tio n s o n h is a b ility to file p le a d in g s in th i s cou rt an d an y co u rt su b j ect to this cou rt’ s j u ri sd i cti on , as w i l lthe fa i l u re to w ith d r a w a n yp e n d in gm a tt e r s th a t a r e fr iv o lo u s . Case: 09-20545 Document: 00511050548 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2010