Tommy Harris v. William Stephens, Director, et al, No. 15-40346 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40346 Document: 00513479442 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-40346 April 25, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk TOMMY R. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondents-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CV-14 Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In November 2014, Tommy R. Harris filed in the district court a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the decision by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denying his release to mandatory supervision and his continued detention by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. During the pendency of the § 2254 proceedings, and 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40346 Document: 00513479442 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2016 No. 15-40346 while he was still in custody, 1 Harris filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief stemming from his continued detention and the denial of his release to mandatory supervision. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Harris’s claims were duplicative of the claims raised in a pending § 2254 proceeding. The district court also denied Harris’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal was meritless and not taken in good faith. Harris now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP. He also moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) and for the appointment of counsel. As an initial matter, a COA is unnecessary in this case. Harris’s case is before us as a challenge to the district court’s certification decision. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of § 1915(a)(3) to suits brought by “prisoners and nonprisoners alike”). When a district court denies IFP status and certifies that an appeal is not taken in good faith, the appellant must either pay the filing fee or challenge the district court’s certification decision. Id.; FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Thus, our inquiry “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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To recover damages under § 1983 for his “allegedly unconstitutional . . . imprisonment,” Harris must prove that the challenged sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see McGrew v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 1 During the pendency of this appeal, Harris notified this court of his release on parole. 2 Case: 15-40346 Document: 00513479442 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2016 No. 15-40346 F.3d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir.1995). He has not made that showing; until he can, his claims seeking damages under § 1983 are not cognizable. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. 2364; McGrew, 47 F.3d at 160-61. Harris’s appeal is therefore without arguable merit. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. As this case presents no “exceptional circumstances,” Harris’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Harris’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 3
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.
