Filed: Jun. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30007 Conference Calendar PERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOUG WELBORN, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-453-C - - - - - - - - - - June 13, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 106488, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivol
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30007 Conference Calendar PERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOUG WELBORN, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-453-C - - - - - - - - - - June 13, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 106488, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30007
Conference Calendar
PERRY JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOUG WELBORN,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-453-C
- - - - - - - - - -
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 106488, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Jackson argues that Doug Welborn, in his capacity as the Clerk of
Court for the 19th Judicial District of Louisiana, erroneously
converted his state action seeking habeas relief into a
prisoner’s civil action, which subjected Jackson to the
requirements of the Administrative Remedy Procedures and a much
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30007
-2-
higher filing fee, in violation of his right of access to the
courts, due process, and equal protection.
To the extent that Jackson is arguing that Welborn’s actions
violated state law by failing to adhere to the state procedural
classifications of these types of actions, his claim of a state-
law violation is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
See Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,
38 F.3d 198, 200 (5th
Cir. 1994). To the extent that Jackson is arguing that Welborn’s
actions interfered with his right of access to the courts, he has
failed to demonstrate an actual injury. See Walker v. Navarro
County Jail,
4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Jackson does not
allege that Welborn’s actions affected the outcome of his state
action in any way. Nor has he provided any factual basis for his
equal protection claim. Dudley v. Angel,
209 F.3d 460, 463 (5th
Cir. 2000)(The Equal Protection Clause essentially requires that
all persons similarly situated should be treated alike).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.