Mathonican v. State of Texas ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11335
Conference Calendar
DAVE LELAND MATHONICAN, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CV-1671
- - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The motion of Texas prisoner Dave Mathonican, Sr., #594269,
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is hereby
GRANTED. The Prison Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner
appealing IFP in a civil action to pay the full amount of the
filing fee, $105. As Mathonican does not have funds for
immediate payment of this fee, he is assessed an initial partial
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-11335
- 2 -
filing fee of $2, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the
remainder will be deducted from Mathonican’s prison trust-fund
account until the entire filing fee is paid. § 1915(b)(2).
IT IS ORDERED that Mathonican pay the appropriate filing fee
to the clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of
Mathonican’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of the
$105 filing fee and forward for payment, in accordance with
§ 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern
District of Texas each time the amount in Mathonican’s account
exceeds $10, until the appellate filing fee is paid.
Mathonican raises numerous appellate contentions, all of
which implicate the validity of his state-court conviction. He
may not pursue his claims in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
until his conviction has been invalidated or called into question
by a grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 489 (1994). Mathonican’s appeal is frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.