¶2*195Robert Charles Ford, pro se.
¶3John L. Hill, Átty. Gen., Thomas W. Choate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall Jr., First Asst. Atty., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
¶4Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
¶7This is a § 1983 suit by a Texas state prisoner. The District Court dismissed it without prejudice to the filing of a habeas corpus petition.
¶8Insofar as plaintiff seeks relief from confinement he must proceed by habeas corpus. The prosecuting attorney1 and the state trial judge who sentenced plaintiff are immune from § 1983 suits.
¶9Plaintiff questions the validity of the search of his car by two police officers. That issue was decided adversely to plaintiff by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We pretermit whether that holding collaterally estops the plaintiff in the present case.2 The officers who conducted the search are not named as parties. The chief of police is named, but he is vicariously liable for the acts of his subordinates only if he directs, orders, participates in, or approves the acts. There is no claim he did so in this case,
¶10a wron/nm