Ralph O. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; 179th District Court; Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Defendants-Appellees, 370 F. App'x 476

PER CURIAM: Ralph O. Douglas, Texas prisoner # 1004998, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He argues that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to address and rule on all of his state habeas claims. “This court reviews a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Douglas argues that the defendants are not entitled to immunity from liability because they misused their power and acted contrary to federal and state law. Douglas has not shown that the defendants’ actions or inactions were not judicial or prosecuto-rial in nature or that they were performed in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir.1993); see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).

Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that the defendants had absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in the scope of their judicial and prosecutorial duties. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427-28, 96 S.Ct. 984. Douglas also argues that because he is not challenging the legality of his convictions or seeking damages for unconstitutional imprisonment, his action is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Douglas fails to show that the district court erred in determining that his claims are barred by Heck. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. Douglas’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 500 F.3d 401, 407 (5th Cir.2007).

Because at least three of his prior civil actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous and count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Douglas is barred from proceeding 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.” § 1915(g); see Douglas v. Folsom, No. 9:01-CV-278 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 24, 2003); In re Douglas, No. H-03-1381 (S.D. Tex. June 13, 2003), affd, No. 04-20089 (5th Cir. June 22, 2004)(dismissing appeal as frivolous); In re Douglas, No. H-03-3955 (S.D.Tex.

Oct. 20, 2003); Douglas v. Cockrell, No. 6:03-CV-102 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 3, 2003). Douglas is WARNED that any future frivolous filings will subject him to additional sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, as will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are 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.