Charles v. Cockrell

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-51316 Clerk
Summary Calendar
SHIRLEY ANN CHARLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D. COCKRELL; S. NANCE; KELLY WARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 6:04-CV-200
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shirley Charles, a Texas inmate, appeals the dismissal of her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Charles’s claims surrounding her
disciplinary conviction for extortion are barred by Heck v. Hum-
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
phrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 643-48 (1997). Charles’s case is distinguishable from
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754 (2004), insofar as she asked
the district court to expunge the extortion disciplinary conviction
from her record. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Charles relief from its judgment under FED.
R. CIV. P. 59(e). See Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th
Cir. 2000); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir.
1986). Finally, Charles fails to state a claim for retaliation,
because she has neither supplied evidence of motivation nor ade-
quately alleged a chronology of events that would allow a plausible
inference of retaliation. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Charles’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See How-
ard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore
dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The instant appeal was pending
when this court imposed a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) three-strikes bar
against Charles. See Charles v. Nance, No. 05-51136, 2006 WL
1752486 (5th Cir. June 21, 2006). That bar remains in effect as to
civil actions and appeals filed in forma pauperis. Although Char-
les has paid the filing fees in this case, she is warned that the
future filing of frivolous appeals in this court may result in ad-
ditional sanctions, which may include monetary penalties. See
Goldgar v. Office of Admin., Executive Office of the President, 26
F.3d 32, 36 n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT;
WARNED ABOUT MONETARY SANCTIONS.