# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________
No. 23

- 50361

____________ Omar Jose Calzada,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

Patton Zarate, Individually and official capacity as Pro

- Tem Bexar County Prosecutor ; Mitchell Yager, Individually and official capacity as Bexar County Public Defender ; Mary Angie Garcia, Individually and official capacity as Bexar County District Clerk ; Angelina Martindelcampo, Individually and official capacity as Bexar County Criminal Magistrate Court Coordinator ; Lucy Adame

- Clark, Individually and official capacity as Bexar County Clerk ; Brandon Roberts, Individually and official capacity as Chief Depu ty of Guadalupe County Constables , Defendants

— Appellees

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:22

- CV

- 1308

_____________________________
Before Richman , Chief Judge , Stewart , Circuit Judge , and Hanks , District Judge

. *

_____________________

* United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 7, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50361 Document: 00516994314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023No. 23

- 50361

2 Per Curiam : * * Pro se Appellant Omar Jose Calzada appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 claims that the Bexar County court clerks, constable,
prosecutor, an d public defender violated his Fourth , Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during his misdemeanor harassment c ase filed in Bexar County Criminal Court. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

I.
Calzada pleaded guilty to conspirac y to manufacture over 100 marijuana plants on August 21, 2014. The district court sentenced him to time served and placed him on a four

- year term of supervised release. In June 2021, he filed a writ of coram nobis , arguing that his conviction was invalid d ue to the admission of a procedurally invalid search warrant and affidavit in his

case. Calzada asserted that a Bexar County clerk fabricated certain documents and denied him due process and a fair trial. The district court
denied his coram nobis petition on the grounds that he failed to show coherent reasons to justify his delay in seeking relief and because the search warrant and affidavit were prope rly authenticated.
In the process of investigating the facts underlying his writ, Calzada allegedly harassed a county attorn ey responsible for processing open records
requests. Consequently, i n September 2020, a Bexar C ounty prosecutor filed
a criminal com plaint for misdemeanor harassment against Calzada for threatening a county clerk employee. In early 2021 , Calzada’s appointed counsel filed a motion for a competency evaluation. Around the same time, the county court judge presiding over Calzada’s case rec used herself , and a state administrative judge assigned a senior state district court judge to preside over all matters in Calzada’s case. A county magistrate judge issued

_____________________

* * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. Case: 23-50361 Document: 00516994314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2023No. 23

- 50361

3 an order for a competency evaluation on February 23, 2021. Calzada refused to comply with th e order. The magistrate judge then ordered the county court clerk to issue a capias warrant for Calzada’s arrest for his noncompliance. A deputy county constable then arrested Calzada.
In December 2022, Calzada filed the instant § 1983 action and n amed several state criminal court clerks, the county constable, the public defender, and prosecutor. Calzada asserted in his complaint that the county court clerks violated his due process rights by delaying his case and committing fraud to prevent him from receiving a speedy trial. He also argued that some
of the clerks also violated his Fourth Amendment rights by issuing an invalid capias warrant at the instruction of a judge lacking jurisdiction over his case. He further contended that his public defender violated his right to effective counsel and that all defendants conspired against him and engaged i n malicious prosecution.
In January 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss Calzada’s claims. On April 13, 2023, t he district court dismissed all of Calzada’s claims on the grounds that the defendants either played no role in the alleged injurious action, t ook no un lawful actions , were not state actor s , or because they properly acted within the bounds of quasi

- judicial immunity as court employee s undertaking an official act by order of a judge.

II.
On appeal, Calzada argues that the federal district court a bused its discretion in denying his motion s for recusal. He further argues that the
district court’s dismissal of his claims against the state court employees and the county prosecutor w as legally incorrect and based on falsified facts. His remaining assignments of error stem from the federal district court ’ s denial of his multiple motions for reconsideration, to alter the judgment, and alleging fabrication of the facts in its dismissal order. Case: 23-50361 Document: 00516994314 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/07/2023No. 23

- 50361

4 Calzada’s arguments are unavailing. The distric t court appropriately
determined that Calzada failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted as to any of the defendants in this case

. First, the claims against his public defender were appropriately dismissed because appointed counsel is

not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability. Mills v. Crim. Dist. Court No.

3 , 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[E]ven court

- appointed attorneys, are not official state actors, and generally are not subject to suit under section 1983.”). Second, the di strict court correctly dismissed Calzada’s claims against the county court employees because the capias warrant was lawfully
issued 1 and “court clerks have absolute immunity from actions for damages arising from acts they are specifically required to do u nder court order or at a judge’s discretion.” Clay v. Allen , 242 F.3d 679, 682 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted ). Third, Calzada ’s claim against the constable was properly dismissed because the constable acted pursuant to a lawfully issued capias warrant. Fourth, state court prosecutors are shielded by absolute immunity while “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case” if the conduct is “associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
Burns v. Reed , 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991). Lastly, the record supports the
district court ’s dismissal of Calzada’s conspiracy claim because he “suffered no violation of his Constitutional rights.”

T he district court’s dismissal of Calzada’s claims is AFFIRMED

. All pend ing motions are DENIED

.

_____________________

1 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows county court clerks to issue capias

warrants. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 23.031, 23.04. Case: 23-50361 Document: 00516994314 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/07/2023