Estrada v. Dominguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 16, 2002
• Docket: 01-10844
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10844 Summary Calendar

JOHN ALBERT ESTRADA, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A. DOMINGUEZ, Dr.; E. CHASE, Nurse, R. CASTRO, Warden; WAYNE SCOTT, Director; R. FILLION, Nurse; WILLIAM GONZALES, Dr.; BILL LONG, Dallas County District Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:00-CV-64 -------------------- January 16, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Estrada, Texas prisoner # 744108, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

He argues that the district court erred in holding that Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) barred the claims asserted in his

original and supplemented complaint and that the district court

erred in not ordering the completion of a Martinez report.

We review the district court’s dismissal under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(c) de novo and find no error. See Ruiz v. United States,

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-10844 -2-

160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). We hold that the district court

did not err in construing the basis for Estrada’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint as an alleged breach of contract, i.e., his allegedly

illegal incarceration. Unless an authorized tribunal or executive

body overturns or otherwise invalidates Estrada’s sentence or

conviction, his breach-of-contract claim and the consequential

damages flowing therefrom are "not cognizable under [section]

1983." Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Thus, the district court did not

err in holding that Heck barred consideration not only of his

breach-of-contract claim but all other claims which arose as a

consequence of his alleged illegal incarceration.

Estrada’s argument that prison policy required his “crime of

record” to be inserted into his medical file, thereby subjecting

him to the “wanton infliction of pain” when medical treatment for

his spider bite was delayed is inadequately briefed and is

therefore not considered. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). We further hold that the district court

did not err in not ordering a Martinez report; Estrada was given

the opportunity to specify in greater detail the nature of his

claims via two court-ordered questionnaires. See Cay v. Estelle,

789 F.2d 318, 323 (5th Cir. 1986).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is

therefore dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

DISMISSED.