* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10534 

Conference Calendar

__________________

NORMAN DUANE WATSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RALPH H. WALTON, JR.; RICHARD HATTOX;

RONNIE BLASINGAME; and HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-00288

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Norman Duane Watson appeals the judgment of the district

court dismissing as frivolous his civil rights action alleging

violations of his constitutional rights in the prosecution and

defense of his state conviction for murder. All of Watson's

claims alleging harm caused by the defendants implicate the

validity of his conviction. The gravamen of Watson's argument on

appeal is that the district court erred in dismissing the action
No. 95-10534

-2-

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) without permitting him to amend his

complaint or requiring the defendants to respond.

 "[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for

challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments." 

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). In order to

recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

would render a conviction or sentence invalid, the "plaintiff

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on

direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called

into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus." Id. 

 It does not appear that Watson's "insufficient factual

allegations might be remedied by more specific pleading. Eason

v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). Watson took the

opportunity to plead his best case in 16 pages of facts in 49

paragraphs in his complaint. See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d

789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, Watson does not identify any

additional facts in his brief that he would have alleged if he

had been given the opportunity. The district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing the case without giving Watson an

opportunity to amend. Eason, 14 F.3d at 9.

 Before reaching the Heck analysis, it is appropriate to

consider whether the doctrine of absolute immunity applies. See

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). "Criminal

prosecutors . . . enjoy absolute immunity from claims for damages

asserted under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for actions taken in the
No. 95-10534

-3-

presentation of the state's case." Id. at 285. "This broad

immunity applies even if the prosecutor is accused of knowingly

using perjured testimony." Id. Watson's allegations that Hattox

influenced prospective witnesses and suborned perjury do not

destroy the prosecutor's absolute immunity. See id. The

district court's dismissal of the claims against Hattox was

proper.

 It is unnecessary to address Watson's remaining claims

because they are not cognizable under § 1983. In his complaint,

Watson alleged that his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal

and that state habeas relief was denied by the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. Watson did not allege that he has filed a

federal application for writ of habeas corpus, but he stated that

a writ of mandamus was pending in the district court "in lieu of

the said state habeas corpus." By his own allegations, Watson

concedes that his conviction has not been reversed, expunged,

invalidated or impugned; therefore, he "has no cause of action

under § 1983." Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2373.

 The district court did not abuse its discretion dismissing

the action as frivolous. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964

F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). 

 AFFIRMED.