IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20811

Summary Calendar

REZA AHMADI,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

LORIE DAVIS, Director, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; 

DAVID G. GUTIERREZ, Chair; 

CHARLEY VALDEZ, 

Program Supervisor III Classification and Records, TDCJ-ID,

Defendants−Appellees.

**************************************************

REZA AHMADI,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

LORIE DAVIS, Director, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Defendant−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:19-CV-3260

No. 4:19-CV-3413

_________________________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20811 Document: 00515430539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2020
No. 19-20811

2

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reza Ahmadi, former Texas prisoner #1713862, moves to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action wherein he sought damages based on an allegedly unlawful period of 

confinement and an incorrect calculation of his date of discharge. The district 

court dismissed the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994), and denied Ahmadi’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying 

that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Ahmadi’s motion to proceed IFP and his appellate brief are construed as 

a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in 

good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). To proceed IFP, Ahmadi must demonstrate 

financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 

689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

This court’s inquiry into whether a nonfrivolous issue exists “is limited 

to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and 

therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If this court upholds the

district court’s certification and the appellant persists in taking an appeal on 

the merits, he must pay the full appellate filing fees and costs within thirty

days or the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Baugh, 117 F.3d 

at 202. This court may determine the merits of an appeal “where the merits 

are so intertwined with the certification decision as to constitute the same 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 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 CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.

 Case: 19-20811 Document: 00515430539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2020
No. 19-20811

3

issue.” Id. If the appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua sponte. 

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

In Heck, “the Supreme Court held that if a plaintiff’s civil rights claim

for damages challenges the validity of his criminal conviction or sentence, and 

the plaintiff cannot show that such conviction or sentence has been reversed, 

invalidated, or otherwise set aside, the claim is not cognizable under § 1983.” 

Magee v. Reed, 912 F.3d 820, 822 (5th Cir. 2019). Ahmadi incorrectly argues 

that, because he no longer has the habeas remedy available to him, his § 1983 

complaint is not subject to the favorable-termination requirement in Heck. He 

does not establish that the calculation of his sentence has been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside. Consequently, his suit for damages based on his 

allegedly unlawful confinement is barred by Heck. See Magee, 912 F.3d at 822.

Because Ahmadi fails to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, the 

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous, and Ahmadi’s IFP motion is DENIED.1 See 

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Given Ahmadi’s history of 

frivolous and repetitive litigation regarding his conviction and confinement, he 

is WARNED that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges to his conviction or confinement will invite the imposition of sanctions, 

which can include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s 

jurisdiction. To avoid sanctions, Ahmadi is ORDERED to review all pending 

matters and to move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive.

1 Because Heck is dispositive, this court will not address Ahmadi’s remaining appellate arguments.

 Case: 19-20811 Document: 00515430539 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2020