Williams v. Collins ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    No. 95-40472
    Summary Calendar
    _____________________
    JOSEPH H. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR,
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    DEVIN C. MUSSLEMAN, Lieutenant
    Coffield Unit; DAVID N. DUHON,
    Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit;
    DAVID T. DOUGLAS, Correctional Officer,
    Coffield Unit; DANNY WILLIAMS, Correctional
    Officer, Coffield Unit; KENNETH J.
    SINGLETARY; STEVEN WILLIAMS, Correctional
    Officer, Coffield Unit; DOYLE WOOD,
    Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit;
    ROBERT LEIS, Correctional Officer, Coffield
    Unit; JAMES B. HENRY, Correctional Officer,
    Coffield Unit; GARY BROWN, Correctional
    Officer, Coffield Unit; JAMES L. HUBERT,
    Disciplinary Captain, Coffield Unit;
    PATRICK K. VEST, Coffield Unit,
    Defendants.
    _______________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Texas
    (6:94-CV-286)
    _______________________________________________________
    (October 17, 1995)
    Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The dismissal of this § 1983 action by the district court,
    on grounds of no arguable merit (§ 1915(d)) is affirmed for the
    following reasons:
    1.   The suit complains of a disciplinary hearing and 1993
    confiscation duplicating the events complained of in a previous
    suit that was dismissed.   Whether or not the prior dismissal was
    with prejudice, the claim has been litigated and is now
    foreclosed.    See Graves v. Hampton, 
    1 F.3d 315
    , 318 (5th Cir.
    1993).
    2.   The claim for deprivation of his property by state
    officials is not a proper § ``1983 claim when state law provides
    an adequate remedy.   However, Williams also argues that the
    property was confiscated in retaliation for his exercise of his
    constitutional right of access to the courts.   The difficulty in
    that, by complaint or in the Spears hearing, Williams was unable
    to give more than an opinion to support his claim.
    3.   Williams abandoned his claim against Captain Hubert by
    giving no justification or argument to support it.
    4.   The disciplinary case was overturned, and the procedure
    by which it happened is immaterial to this case.
    Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions
    that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
    cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
    needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
    profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published.
    2
    5.   The complaint against Collins sets out no connection
    between Collins and the loss of Williams’ good-time credit if the
    loss is due to administrative error.   If there is no
    administrative error, he may not challenge his loss of credit by
    § 1983 but only by habeas corpus.    Heck v. Humphrey, 
    114 S.Ct. 2364
    , 2372 (1994).
    6.   He has shown no liberty interest to receive papers
    following the confiscation of property determined to be
    contraband.   See Sandin v. Conner, 
    115 S.Ct. 2293
    , 2297-2300
    (1995).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-40472

Filed Date: 10/5/1995

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014