Criner v. Garcia ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11396
Summary Calendar
BUDDY LEE CRINER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARLENE GARCIA, Supervisor, Board of Pardon and Parole; BOARD OF
PARDON & PAROLE; GARY JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CV-198-R
--------------------
May 16, 2002
Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Buddy Lee Criner appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his
in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Texas
Board of Pardons and Paroles (Parole Board), parole officer
Arlene Garcia, and Gary Johnson, director of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice. Criner argues that he was arrested and
detained on hearsay evidence until his parole revocation hearing,
that the Parole Board hearing subjected him to double jeopardy,
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-11396
-2-
and witness subpoenas for the hearing were improperly served.
This court reviews for an abuse of discretion the district
court’s determination that an IFP complaint is frivolous.
See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Criner’s claims against the Parole Board are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See Littles v. Board of Pardons & Paroles
Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). Criner’s claims against
Garcia and Johnson are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486 (1994), because he has failed to demonstrate that the outcome
of his parole hearing determining that he violated two rules of
release has been reversed, 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. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of
Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). Because a
judgment in favor of Criner on any of his claims would
necessarily imply the invalidity of the parole proceedings, his
action is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The district
court’s dismissal of Criner’s suit is
AFFIRMED.