Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-10-20117/USCOURTS-ca5-10-20117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20117

Summary Calendar

QIAN IBRAHIM ZHAO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AN UNKNOWN AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF

NARCOTICS; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

HOUSTON FIELD OFFICE; KENNETH LANDGREBE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-1963

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Qian Ibrahim Zhao appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his

civil rights action for failure to state a claim and because the action was time

barred. Zhao explains in his brief that he no longer seeks to proceed against

the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, whom he named as a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 4, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 10-20117 Document: 00511338860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20117

defendant in his first amended complaint. Accordingly, we need not address the

district court’s dismissal of the claims against her. See Easton v. Sanders, 67

F.3d 97, 99 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). Liberally construed, Zhao’s argument is that

the district court erred by failing to permit him to file his second amended

complaint raising additional claims against two new defendants—U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Houston Field Office and one of its

employees. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The district court did not explicitly

decide whether Zhao should have been granted leave to amend. However, we

construe the court’s ruling granting the motion to dismiss as implicitly denying

leave, see Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1994), a

decision we review for abuse of discretion, Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542-43

(5th Cir. 1993).

The district court’s reasons for declining to allow Zhao leave to amend are

apparent from the record. See id. The court explained in its order dismissing

the action that the statute of limitations bars Zhao’s civil rights and common law

tort claims and that he failed to state a claim under the new theories he

purported to raise in the second amended complaint. On appeal, Zhao argues for

the first time that the “continuing violations doctrine” renders his claims timely.

Zhao fails to explain, however, why he could not have brought this issue to the

attention of the district court or why refraining from addressing it now would

result in a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, we decline to consider this

argument. See Matter of HECI Exploration Co., Inc., 862 F.2d 513, 521-22 (5th

Cir. 1988). Moreover, Zhao does not argue on appeal that his second amended

complaint stated a claim under any of the new theories that he advanced in that

pleading; thus, has abandoned those issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Zhao also seeks to add a claim that he is an “innocent owner” under

21 U.S.C. §§ 801, 881, but he may not raise a new claim on appeal that he did

not raise in the district court unless failure to address the claim would result in

2

 Case: 10-20117 Document: 00511338860 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2011
No. 10-20117

a clear miscarriage of justice. See Black v. North Panola School Dist., 461 F.3d

587, 593 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no showing of clear miscarriage of justice. By

failing to move for recusal in the district court, Zhao has also abandoned any

argument that the district judge should have recused himself . See Andrade v.

Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2003). Finally, Zhao’s challenge to the

multidistrict litigation panel’s decision refusing to transfer his case is not

properly before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 10-20117 Document: 00511338860 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2011