Null vs. Sanders, (5th Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10709 Summary Calendar DAVID NULL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus D.D. SANDERS, Warden; DANIEL A. ROJAS, Correctional Officer 3; JOSE L. VALENZUELA, Correctional Officer III, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2:00-CV-58) (August 28, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant David Null, Texas prisoner #624372, appeals the district court§ 1983 lawsuit as friv olous and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. He contends that the district court erred in relying upon Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641 (1997), to dismiss his claims against the officers who allegedly assaulted him. Null argues that because he did not lose any good-time credits through his disciplinary procee ding, he is no longer “in custody” pursuant to that proceeding so that the requirements of Heck need not be fulfilled.
Null has failed to show, ho wever, that he did not in fact lose good-time credits as a result of the disciplinary proceeding.
Consequently, before he could obtain money damages for the alleged assault by Officers Rojas and Valenzuela, Null would have to show that the result of the disciplinary hearing, in which he was charged with striking an officer, had been overturned. A s Null concedes that his disciplinary conviction has not been overturned, his claims are barred by Heck and Edwards .
Null also contends that Warden Sanders failed to investigate adequately his grievance filed against Rojas and Vale nzuela.
Inasmuch as the result of this grie vance has no bearing on the duration of his con finement, however, Null cannot show the exi stence of a state-created liberty interest in an inmate grievance procedure. S ee Orellana v. Kyle , 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995).
Null nevertheless advances that Sanders should have known about the officersÂ’ history of retaliatory beatings of prisoners; yet he provides nothing other than his unsubstantiated allegation that such a history exists. Without more, that is not sufficient to support a civil rights claim. S ee Moody v. Baker , 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988).
Null also asserts that Sanders failed to train Valenzuela and Rojas sufficiently. As Null has failed to show a causal link between a failure to train and the alleged violation of his rights, and has failed to show that Sanders had any knowledge of a risk to Null before Null filed his grievance, this claim fails as well.
See Smith v. Brenoettsy , 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998).
For the foregoing reasons, the district court§ 1915(g), see Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996); and that if he receives two more § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Samuel Orellana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Kyle, Chairman, Board of Pardon and Parole, Defendant-Appellee., 65 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 1995)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Eric Smith, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve Brenoettsy, Lieutenant, Et Al., Defendants, John P. Whitley, Warden, Defendant-Appellant., 158 F.3d 908 (5th Cir. 1998)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Valentino B. Adepegba, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy G. Hammons, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Special Agent Assigned To F C I Oakdale; John L. Nixon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting Supervisory Special Agent At F C I Oakdale, Defendants-Appellees., 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
