(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-5224
Summary Calendar
Turner Myer, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
Jim Weeks, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
92 CV 260
March 29,1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Turner Myer, III, was convicted of the aggravated sexual
assault of his nine-year-old stepdaughter Sharon in Texas state
court on August 14, 1985. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
Myer brings this § 1983 suit against various individuals involved
in his trial, naming as defendants Jim Weeks, the principal at
Sharon's school; Thu Ngyuen, a health clinic employee; Craig
Miller, the prosecutor; Terry Donohue, a Port Arthur, Texas police

-- 1 of 4 --

2
officer; Judy Cornelius, a Texas Department of Human Resources
employee; Dexter Patterson, his court-appointed attorney; and John
Appleman, a county clerk. The district court dismissed the claims
as to Donohue, Miller, Cornelius, and Patterson as time-barred and
those involving Weeks, Ngyuen, and Appleman as frivolous pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). We affirm.
I.
District courts may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint as
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.
Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992). We review such
§ 1915(d) dismissals for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1734.
This case's lengthy procedural history is set out in the
magistrate's report and district court's opinion. Myer was
convicted and sentenced on charges of aggravated sexual assault in
1985. He filed two separate § 1983 suits in 1986, and another in
1989. Because Myer had not exhausted his state court remedies, the
first two suits were dismissed without prejudice and the third was
placed on the inactive docket pending exhaustion. Myer has since
availed himself of possible habeas remedies, filing one state
application for a writ of habeas corpus and two federal petitions
pursuant to § 2254. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his
application in 1990; we affirmed the district court's denial of
Myer's separate federal petitions in 1991 and 1992. The instant §
1983 suit was filed on June 24, 1992.
The district court held that Myer's claims against Donohue,
Miller, Cornelius, and Patterson were time-barred because these

-- 2 of 4 --

3
individuals were not named as defendants in the 1986 civil actions.
On appeal, Myer insists that all seven of the defendants in the
present suit were included in suits he filed in 1986. We hold that
the district court's judgment should be affirmed even if the
statute of limitations has not run as to these four defendants, for
the claims lodged against them are patently frivolous.
Myer asserts that Donohue, a police officer, committed perjury
while testifying against him at the 1985 criminal trial. It is
well-settled, however, that "[w]itnesses, including police
officers, are . . . shielded by absolute immunity from liability
for their allegedly perjurious testimony." Enlow v. Tishomingo
County, 962 F.2d 501, 511 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue,
103 S.Ct. 1108, 1121 (1983). Miller, the prosecutor in Myer's
case, also enjoys absolute immunity from liability, see, e.g.,
Burns v. Reed, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1941-42 (1991), and Myer's claim
against him therefore fails as well.
Myer also maintains that Patterson, his court-appointed
attorney, made several prejudicial errors at trial, including
permitting the prosecutor to inform the jury that Myer gave Sharon
a venereal disease, failing to subpoena witnesses, and allowing him
to stand trial under an unconstitutional statute. Private
attorneys who have conspired with state officials may be held
liable under § 1983. See, e.g., Mills v. Criminal District Court
No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). As in Mills, the
incidents cited in support of Myer's conspiracy allegation would
seem relevant only to the issue of ineffective assistance of

-- 3 of 4 --

1 Myer asserts in his brief that the magistrate's
recommendation of dismissal was based on his race and therefore
constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This
claim appears utterly groundless and, in any event, is not
properly before us because Myer failed to present it in the
district court below. United States v. Cates, 952 F.2d 149, 152
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2319 (1992).
4
counsel, a claim that Myer raised in his second federal habeas
petition. Id.; Myer v. Collins, No. 92-4450 (5th Cir. Oct. 8,
1992).
Myer contends that Cornelius, an employee of the Texas
Department of Human Resources, improperly "brought Sharon to court
for the trial and signaled to [the victim] as she testified." This
claim has been previously considered, and rejected, by this court.
See Myer v. Collins, No. 91-4032 (5th Cir. Mar. 27, 1991). As in
his habeas petition, Myer has not shown how this conduct violated
his federal rights.
The district court reached the merits of Myer's claims against
Weeks, the principal at Sharon's school and a witness at trial,
Nyguen, a health care worker and witness at trial, and Appleman, a
county clerk who allegedly failed to provide Myer's sister with
certain portions of the trial transcript The court's rejection of
these claims was proper. As witnesses, Weeks and Nyguen, like
Officer Donohue, are "shielded by absolute immunity from liability
for their allegedly perjurious testimony." Enlow, 962 F.2d at 511.
Myer's claim against Appleman is meritless as well.1
The district court's dismissal of the complaint is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --