Filed: Aug. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40006 Conference Calendar RAYMOND ROSS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus A. AUGUST, Correctional Officer; RICKY TARVER, Captain; KEITH GORSUCH, Lieutenant Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-358 - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Raymond Ross Williams, Texas prisoner #308266, appeals
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40006 Conference Calendar RAYMOND ROSS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus A. AUGUST, Correctional Officer; RICKY TARVER, Captain; KEITH GORSUCH, Lieutenant Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-358 - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Raymond Ross Williams, Texas prisoner #308266, appeals ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40006
Conference Calendar
RAYMOND ROSS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
A. AUGUST, Correctional Officer;
RICKY TARVER, Captain;
KEITH GORSUCH, Lieutenant
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-358
--------------------
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymond Ross Williams, Texas prisoner #308266, appeals the
denial of his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), which
provides that a judgment may be set aside if it is void.
Williams’ claims were dismissed by the district court, with
prejudice, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Williams’ appeal was dismissed as
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-40006
-2-
frivolous.1 Williams then filed his Rule 60(b)(4) motion in the
district court. Williams contends on appeal, as he did in the
court below, that the judgment of dismissal with prejudice was
void under Heck v. Humphrey2 and Johnson v. McElveen,3 as
dismissal should have been without prejudice.
The concept of void judgment must be narrowly restricted.
United States v. 119.67 Acres of Land,
663 F.2d 1328, 1331 (5th
Cir. 1981). "A judgment is not void simply because it is
erroneous, but only where the court rendering it lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, or if it
acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law."
Id. A
judgment is void even though a court has subject-matter
jurisdiction if the court that rendered the judgment or order did
so "outside its legal powers." Carter v. Fenner,
136 F.3d 1000,
1005 (5th Cir. 1998).
The judgment dismissing Williams’ § 1983 claims with
prejudice was not void under Rule 60(b)(4). Dismissal of a state
prisoner’s § 1983 claims for damages, with prejudice, is
permitted under Heck. See Boyd v. Biggers,
31 F.3d 279, 283-84
(5th Cir. 1994); see also Stephenson v. Reno,
28 F.3d 26, 27-28
(5th Cir. 1994) (remanding § 1983 action for dismissal with
prejudice pursuant to Heck).
AFFIRMED.
1
Will. v. August, No. 99-40886 (5th Cir. February 17,
2000).
2
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
3
101 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1996).
No. 01-40006
-3-