Adams v. TDCJ - Inst Div

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 97-10433
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
WILBERT RAY ADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Reception and Diagnostic
Center; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE -
ROBERTSON UNIT, Classification Committee; H D
SHAFFER, Dr; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE - ROBERTSON UNIT, Mail Room; YBARRA,
Sgt.; TDCJ, PARDON AND PAROLE DIVISION;
STEWART, Officer; FUENTES, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-186
December 16, 1997
Before WEINER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Wilbert Ray Adams, Texas prisoner # 629929, appeals the
judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights action
as frivolous. He contends, succinctly, that the district court
erred in treating all of the incidents as separate claims and
ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Adams argues that the theory of his civil rights action was that
there was a racially motivated conspiracy to retaliate against him
for exercising his right of access to the courts.
“[A]ny cause of action against the defendants accrued as soon
as [Adams] knew or should have known of the overt acts involved in
the alleged conspiracy.” Helton v. Clements, 832 F.2d 332, 335
(5th Cir. 1987). Given the facts presented in the complaint, Adams
knew or should have known about the alleged conspiracy more than
two years before he filed his complaint on May 13, 1996. All of
his claims except those related to his convictions for delivery of
drugs and forgery are time-barred. To the extent that a judgment
in favor of Adams would necessarily imply the invalidity of those
convictions or sentences, his claim is not cognizable because there
is no showing that the convictions or sentences have been
invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364(1994). Moreover, Adams’ complaint did not contain any facts
indicating the existence of an agreement, nor did it demonstrate
any type of collusion among the defendants. See Way v. Mueller
Brass Co., 840 F.2d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that “‘bald
-2-
allegations‘ of an agreement do not suffice” to show conspiracy).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
the action as frivolous. Adams’ appeal is without arguable merit.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
-3-