Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20572 Summary Calendar _ EARL TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS JOHN M. BIRHUNKO, DOUG SHAVER, Judge, and DOUGLAS M. DURHAM, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-96-591) _ December 6, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Earl Taylor appeals the dismissal, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20572 Summary Calendar _ EARL TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS JOHN M. BIRHUNKO, DOUG SHAVER, Judge, and DOUGLAS M. DURHAM, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-96-591) _ December 6, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Earl Taylor appeals the dismissal, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 96-20572
Summary Calendar
_______________
EARL TAYLOR, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JOHN M. BIRHUNKO, DOUG SHAVER, Judge, and DOUGLAS M. DURHAM,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-96-591)
_________________________
December 6, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Earl Taylor appeals the dismissal, as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner's civil rights
complaint. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
Taylor's allegations call into question the validity of his
confinement and are barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
114 S. Ct. 2364
(1994). Moreover, the state judge is entitled to absolute
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
immunity. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2