Claude E KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in their supervisory role; Monroe County Sheriff Ruble Maxey, in his official and individual capacity; County Prosecutor Don Baker, in his official and individual capacity; Monroe County Deputy John Michael Lay, in his official and individual capacity; John Buckner, as per information from Sheriff Ruble Maxey; Paul Buckner, Defendants-Appellees, 235 F. App'x 242

PER CURIAM: Claude E. Kelley moves for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. After pleading nolo contendere to charges of disorderly conduct and paying a fine, Kelley filed a complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; the Americans With Disabilities Act; and various Mississippi statutes. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

The court held that Kelley’s claims concerning his allegedly wrongful arrest and prosecution were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and further held that, accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint, Kelley was not entitled to relief as to any of his claims. The district court denied Kelley permission to appeal IFP because the court determined that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court did not address Kelley’s financial status.

We conclude that Kelley is financially eligible to appeal IFP; however, we concur with the district court’s determination that Kelley cannot raise any nonfrivolous issues on appeal. Kelley wishes to argue on appeal that Heck does not bar his claims because he was only fined and not imprisoned. This contention is frivolous. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The remainder of Kelley’s arguments are unrelated to the district court’s determination that his complaint failed to state a claim. Accordingly, Kelley has failed to establish a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. See Carson v.

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The motion to proceed IFP motion is denied. As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is dismissed. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.