United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Deputy 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: 12/07/2023
No. 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, and public defender violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights during his misdemeanor harassment case filed in Bexar 

County Criminal Court. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

I.

Calzada pleaded guilty to conspiracy 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 due 

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 properly authenticated.

In the process of investigating the facts underlying his writ, Calzada 

allegedly harassed a county attorney responsible for processing open records 

requests. Consequently, in September 2020, a Bexar County prosecutor filed 

a criminal complaint 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 recused 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: 12/07/2023
No. 23-50361

3

an order for a competency evaluation on February 23, 2021. Calzada refused 

to comply with the 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 named 

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 in 

malicious prosecution. 

In January 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss Calzada’s claims. 

On April 13, 2023, the district court dismissed all of Calzada’s claims on the 

grounds that the defendants either played no role in the alleged injurious 

action, took no unlawful actions, were not state actors, or because they 

properly acted within the bounds of quasi-judicial immunity as court 

employees undertaking an official act by order of a judge. 

II.

On appeal, Calzada argues that the federal district court abused its

discretion in denying his motions for recusal. He further argues that the 

district court’s dismissal of his claims against the state court employees and 

the county prosecutor was 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: 12/07/2023
No. 23-50361

4

Calzada’s arguments are unavailing. The district 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 district court correctly dismissed Calzada’s claims 

against the county court employees because the capias warrant was lawfully 

issued1 and “court clerks have absolute immunity from actions for damages 

arising from acts they are specifically required to do under 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.” 

The district court’s dismissal of Calzada’s claims is AFFIRMED.

All pending 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