Summary Calendar JIMMMY DIAZ v. FNU MINGS, Officer; FNU BASCO, Officer; FNU GRIFFEN, Officer

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51075
Summary Calendar
JIMMMY DIAZ
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
FNU MINGS, Officer; FNU BASCO, Officer; FNU GRIFFEN, Officer
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-673
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Diaz, Texas state prisoner # 1201534, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis,
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He argues that the district court
erred when it dismissed his excessive force claim, which arose
from an incident between Officer Mings and Diaz. He contends
that Officer Mings used excessive force, causing injuries, and
that Officers Basco and Griffen witnessed the incident and failed
to provide assistance. Disciplinary proceedings resulted from
the incident.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-51075
-2-
The district court dismissed this action in its entirety
based upon Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), and Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, the
Supreme Court held that to state a claim under § 1983 for a
constitutional violation that, if proven, would imply the
invalidity of a criminal conviction or sentence, the plaintiff
must first demonstrate that a proper tribunal has held the
conviction or sentence invalid. Otherwise, a claim for damages
is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Heck applies to
disciplinary rulings. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646-48.
The merits of Diaz’s excessive force claims were addressed
only in the district court’s alternative rulings. Diaz fails to
discuss in his brief the district court’s conclusion that his
complaint should be dismissed as frivolous because it was barred
by Heck. He also fails to argue that his excessive force claim
should survive the Heck-based dismissal. By failing to address
the Heck-based dismissal, Diaz has abandoned the sole issue that
is before this court. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --