Charles Lee, Jr. v. Lee Wade, et al, No. 14-30814 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-30814 Document: 00512940886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-30814 FILED February 19, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CHARLES H. LEE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LEE WADE, Correctional Officer, Louisiana State Prison; BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Prison; JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:14-CV-272 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles H. Lee, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 386633, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed Lee’s complaint for failure to state a claim due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It certified that the appeal had not been taken in good faith and denied Lee permission to 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-30814 Document: 00512940886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2015 No. 14-30814 proceed IFP on appeal. Lee argues that the dismissal of his complaint was error and was based on an incomplete record. By moving to proceed IFP, Lee is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether the complaint clearly established that Lee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit is arguable. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Thus, Lee has raised a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for IFP is granted. However, we dispense with further briefing in this appeal and, for the following reasons, affirm the district court’s judgment. We may affirm the district court’s dismissal on any basis supported by the record. See Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2006). Any claim that Lee was issued a false disciplinary case due to racial discrimination would necessarily imply that his disciplinary conviction is invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). Lee has not shown that his disciplinary conviction has been invalidated by official action. Therefore, his claims are barred by Heck and are not at this point cognizable in a § 1983 action. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Cronn v. Buffington, 150 F.3d 538, 541 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1998). IFP MOTION GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED 2
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.
