
    DeShawn HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; Mitch Wood, Chief of Police; Thomas Davis, in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-40157
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 20, 2008.
    Deshawn Hall, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

DeShawn Hall, Texas prisoner # 144452, filed a pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint against several Texas state officials wherein he argued that the requirement that he register as a sex offender violated his right to due process, his Eighth Amendment rights, and the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. Hall appeals the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

This court reviews dismissals as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1999). However, a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is reviewed de novo. Id.

Retroactive application of laws requiring sex-offender registration and notification do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103-04, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003). The district court properly dismissed Hall’s ex post facto challenge as both frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Berry, 192 F.3d at 507. Further, because he is currently incarcerated for failure to register, Hall’s constitutional challenge to the registration requirement also is an indirect challenge to his incarceration. Hall’s claims are thus not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 until he proves that the incarceration has been reversed or declared invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     