Seaton v. Rodriguez ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50044
Summary Calendar
JOHNNY RAY SEATON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CV-467-JN
--------------------
November 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Johnny Ray Seaton, Texas state prisoner #253239, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for failure to state a cause of action. Seaton argues
that his release on parole under the conditions set forth in Tex.
Code Crim. P. art. 42.18 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, that
he is entitled to injunctive relief against Rodriguez from future
parole determinations under article 42.18, that the conditions of
his 1990 parole release required him to admit his guilt, and that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-50044
-2-
his involuntary expulsion from counseling could not reasonably be
considered a parole violation.
None of Seaton’s allegations about his release on parole
state a claim for § 1983 relief. Seaton’s claims that he is
entitled to injunctive relief from application of article 42.18
to him in the future do not have cognizable bases under
§ 1983. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995);
Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995). To the extent
that Seaton seeks monetary damages for an alleged ex post facto
violation leading to the revocation of his parole and for his
assertion that his expulsion from counseling was insufficient to
support his parole revocation, his claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of
Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995).
Seaton also argues that he was denied due process by the use
before the district court on his habeas petition of the results
of the plethysmograph test, which was conducted without his
receiving the Miranda warnings. This argument is meritless.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.