Figgs v. Vrazel ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40696
Summary Calendar
CEDRIC CHARLES FIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VICTOR J. VRAZEL; CHARLES LACKEY;
LAURIE MEDIA; KERRY DIXON; MARK DIAZ;
LEPHER JENKINS; HURKALOT, Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(99-CV-81)
--------------------
December 15, 1999
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Cedric Charles Figgs, Texas prisoner No.
623481, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
To the extent that Figgs seeks restoration of lost good-time
credits, the district court properly dismissed his claims because
such relief is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d
186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1052
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
(1999). We also find no error in the dismissal of Figgs’s claims
of conspiracy because Figgs failed to provide any factual support
for his allegations. Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir.
1994); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1986).
The district court did err, however, in dismissing Figgs’s
claim for monetary damages based on alleged due process violations
in prison disciplinary proceedings because Figgs specifically
alleged, both in his complaint and in his objections to the
magistrate judge’s report, that the challenged disciplinary
conviction had been expunged on administrative review. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.
641, 648 (1997); see Clarke, 154 F.3d at 189. Thus, the district
court abused its discretion when it dismissed the complaint without
further exploration of Figgs’s allegations. Norton v. Dimazana,
122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997); Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278,
281-82 (5th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is VACATED and the
case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2