* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-20164

Summary Calendar

JEREMY LEE CONLIN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BARBARA LANGE; SCOTT PAWGAN; JARROD LEE WALKER;

MARCIA TILLMAN, Individually, 9th District Court, Montgomery

County; RUSSELL SMITH; GOVERNOR RICK PERRY, Governor

of Texas; GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas; STATE OF

TEXAS; ERIC TAYCE BOND; APRIL KNUDSEN; MATTHEW PAUL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-1817

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremy Lee Conlin, Texas prisoner # 01293724, appeals the dismissal,

pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The district court’s dismissal is

reviewed de novo, accepting all of Conlin’s allegations as true. See

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20164

2

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Ashe v. Corley,

992 F.2d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1993).

If his brief is liberally construed, Conlin renews his claims that his trial

and appellate counsel were ineffective; that the State and the prosecution

violated his constitutional rights in failing to maintain an open-file policy; and

that Governor Perry violated his rights by failing to correct ambiguities in the

Code of Criminal Procedure. He specifically waives any challenge to the

dismissal of his claims against defendant Lange for allegedly filing a false report

and against Tillman, Abbott, and Paul for malicious prosecution. Conlin also

waives by failing to brief any argument challenging the dismissal of his claims

against Texas and the Texas Legislature for violating his privacy rights and

exposing him to vigilante justice by requiring him to register as a sex offender.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Conlin does not specifically renew his argument that the sex-offenderregistration requirement violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing instead

that his claim arose under the Eighth Amendment. This court will not consider

the newly raised claim. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass

Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).

As the district court determined, Conlin’s ineffective-assistance claims fail

because court-appointed counsel are not state actors for purposes of § 1983.

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981). The district court similarly

correctly determined that Conlin’s claim regarding the State’s failure to

maintain an open-file policy did not give rise to a constitutional violation. See

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). Conlin’s claims against Governor

Perry arose exclusively under state law and thus likewise did not involve a

constitutional violation. See Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 759 F.2d 1224,

1230 (5th Cir. 1985).

Conlin’s lawsuit was properly dismissed. Because he has not shown that

he could assert any viable claims if given an opportunity for additional factual
No. 07-20164

3

development, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without

conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 10

(5th Cir. 1994).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Conlin’s motion for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED.