Bryant v. Rubalcaba ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50929
Summary Calendar
SHELLY LEON BRYANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EDIE RUBALCABA, The State of Texas,
County of El Paso, District Clerk;
MARVIN PETERSEN, Chief Deputy Clerk;
PEDRO VALDEZ, Deputy Clerk; SEAN VASQUEZ,
Deputy Clerk,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-95-CV-270
- - - - - - - - - -
May 16, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Appellant argues that the district
court erred in dismissing his § 1983 action because his complaint
and amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to state claims
for violations of the Texas Open Records Act, his due process
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50929
- 2 -
right of access to the courts, and his First, Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing
as moot his claim regarding his state nunc pro tunc motions.
Although the district court erred in considering information
outside of the pleadings in ruling on the Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) claim, the error was harmless because appellant may
not challenge the correctness of a state court ruling in a § 1983
action. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th
Cir. 1994).
We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion
concerning appellant’s other claims, and appellant’s brief, and
conclude that appellant has failed to raise a constitutional
issue. Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To
avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.