Vidales v. Abbott, et al, No. 06-40978 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40978 Conference Calendar JOE VIDALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GREGORY W. ABBOTT, Texas Attorney General; DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; MICHAEL P. MONDVILLE, TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CV-40 -------------------Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Vidales, Texas prisoner # 677120, appeals the district court s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in which he alleged that his conviction and sentence were unlawful. A district court shall dismiss a case if it determines that the case is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This court reviews the dismissal of a prisoner s complaint as frivolous for an abuse * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-40978 -2of discretion. Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1998). With the benefit of liberal construction, Vidales argues that his complaint should not have been dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). He has not shown, however, that his claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Therefore, the district court did not err. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102 (5th Cir. 1996). Vidales s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court s dismissal of Vidales s complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Cir. 1996). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th We previously dismissed one of Vidales s appeals as frivolous in which the district court had also dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See Vidales v. Lantern Square Apartments, No. 96-20201 (5th Cir. June 25, 1996)(unpublished). As Vidales has accumulated at least four strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
