Jackson v. Quarterman ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 20, 2008
    No. 07-10502
    Conference Calendar           Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    PIERRO JACKSON
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:07-CV-223
    Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Pierro Jackson, Texas prisoner # 1152599, appeals the dismissal as
    frivolous of a complaint seeking to expunge his arrest records in four state
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10502
    criminal cases,1 and he moves for appointment of appellate counsel. The motion
    for appointment of counsel is denied.
    The district court is directed to dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner
    against an officer or employee of a governmental entity if the complaint “is
    frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
    28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A complaint is legally frivolous when it is based on an
    indisputably meritless legal theory. Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325
    (1989). The dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under § 1915A is reviewed for
    abuse of discretion. Martin v. Scott, 
    156 F.3d 578
    , 580 (5th Cir. 1998).
    A federal court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to direct
    state officials in the performance of their duties. Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County
    Superior Court, 
    474 F.2d 1275
    , 1276 (5th Cir. 1973) (mandamus directed at state
    judicial officials). Neither does a federal court have authority to enjoin state
    executive officials to expunge matters of public record. Cavett v. Ellis, 
    578 F.2d 567
    , 568 (5th Cir. 1978); Carter v. Hardy, 
    526 F.2d 314
    , 315-16 (5th Cir. 1976).
    AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
    1
    Although Jackson filed his pleading on the form used for 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    petitions, he does not dispute the district court’s determination that his suit
    alleged a civil complaint.
    2