Absalon v. US Attorney General ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20901
Summary Calendar
HUGO P ABSALON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL; US ATTORNEY,
Southern District of Texas, Mervyn M Mosbacker,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-999
--------------------
June 26, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hugo P. Absalon, federal prisoner #82491-079, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his civil rights complaint against the United States attorney
who handled his prosecution.
Absalon’s motion for corrections to the district court
docket sheet in United States v. Absalon, No. 1:98-CR-506 (S.D.
Tex.) is DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20901
-2-
Absalon argues that his due process rights, as set forth in
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), were violated when the
prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in connection with his
criminal prosecution for transporting an alien within the United
states and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Absalon’s damage claims are barred by the doctrine of
absolute immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th
Cir. 1994). Additionally, Absalon411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, Absalon’s appeal lacks
arguable merit and is thus dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
This dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adpegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th
Cir. 1996). We caution Absalon that once he accumulates three
strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action
or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED; MOTION
DENIED