Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-20054/USCOURTS-ca5-16-20054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Does I through the Harris County District Attorney Office
Appellee
Rickey L. Hargrove
Appellant
Donna M. Welborn-Hawkins
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20054

Summary Calendar

RICKEY L. HARGROVE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY DONNA M. WELBORN-HAWKINS, In 

her Individual and Official Capacity; DOES I THROUGH THE HARRIS 

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-1494

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rickey L. Hargrove, Texas prisoner # 1294506, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. According to Hargrove, 

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Donna Welborn-Hawkins and other 

unnamed prosecutors violated his right to due process because there was no 

evidence that Hargrove committed a crime. Hargrove contends that Welborn-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20054 Document: 00513726012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 16-20054

2

Hawkins acted beyond the scope of her duties as a prosecutor when she 

fabricated evidence, which she then presented to the grand jury to obtain an 

indictment.

In the district court and this court, Hargrove alleges no facts in support 

of his claim that the prosecutors fabricated evidence that was used against 

him. Rather, he merely presents conclusory allegations and relies on a 

purported lack of physical evidence, an inconclusive DNA report, and 

inconsistent statements of a prosecution witness as support for his civil rights 

claims. Even under de novo review, therefore, Hargrove fails to show error in 

the district court’s conclusion that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars his 

civil rights claims and thus his complaint fails to state a claim for relief. See 

Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hargrove’s motion 

requesting judgment for relief sought is DENIED.

 Case: 16-20054 Document: 00513726012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016