Summary Calendar James Edward Price v. COUNTY COURT CLERK OF HILL COUNTY TEXAS, Individually and in his/her official capacity

1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No.02-51170
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
JAMES EDWARD PRICE
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
COUNTY COURT CLERK OF HILL COUNTY TEXAS, Individually and in
his/her official capacity
Defendant - Appellee
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division
(W-02-CV-133)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
James Edward Price, federal prisoner # 82392-80, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of
his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. For the following reasons, we affirm the
decision of the district court.
I.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
The district court dismissed appellant’s suit as frivolous after determining it was barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Price argues that his case is not barred by Heck because
it concerns only the county clerk’s dissemination of false information regarding a state conviction,
rather than implicating the validity of his federal conviction or sentence. We review a district
court’s determination that an IFP suit is frivolous for an abuse of discretion. See Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
II.
Price cannot avoid the Heck bar by arguing that his cause of action is based solely on the
dissemination of the allegedly false information because, to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
defamation claim, Price must demonstrate “a stigma plus an infringement of some other interest.”
San Jacinto Sav. & Loan v. Kacal, 928 F.2d 697, 701 (5th Cir. 1991). The only mention of injury
found in either Price’s brief or his complaint is the use of the allegedly false information in his
federal sentencing. Accordingly, Price’s complaint implicitly challenges the duration of his
confinement because, if the fact of his prior conviction was false, as he contends, that fact would
render Price’s federal sentence invalid. Therefore, under Heck, Price’s argument that he was
damaged by the dissemination of false information by the county must be barred, because he has
not shown that his sentence “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s decision to dismiss Price’s complaint as
frivolous because it is barred by Heck is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --