Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt exc ept under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Bivens v. Six Unk nown Named Agen tsof Federal B ureauof Narcot ics , 4 03 U.S. 3 88 1 (1 9 7 1 ). 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20428 Su m m ar y Cal endar

DAVI D MI CHA ELS HEI D, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. UN I TE D S TA TE S M ARS HAL S ERVI CE, Ho u s t o n Div i s i o n ; U. S
. M ARS HAL NO. 1 J ANE DOE, I n d iv i d u a l l y , a n d i n h e ro f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y ; U
. S
. M ARS HAL N O
. 2 JO H N D O E , I ndi vi dual l y and i n hi s of f i c i alc apac i t y, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 3295
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * D avid M i cha elSh ei d, f ederalpri soner # 319 57-177 an d T exas pri soner # 60673 , appeal s t he di sm i ss alof a Bi v e ns com pl ai n ta l l egi n g t h at m em bers of

1 t h e U n i t ed S t ates M arsha l ’ s S ervi ce (U S M S ) p revented h i m fr om fi l i n g a w ri tof
c er t i or ar if

r om t hi s c our t ’ s deni al of a c er t i f i c at e of appeal abi l i t y ( C O A) t o a ppeal United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 20, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20428 Document: 00511117636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 20428

2 th e d e n ia l o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 r e lie f. C o n s tr u in gt h e c o m p la in t a s ra is in gs o le ly
a c l ai m o f

de ni al o f ac c e s s t o t he c o ur t s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur the l d t hatt he c o m pl ai nt fai l ed t o s t at e ac l ai m f orr el i ef be c ause Sh ei d c oul d notdem ons t r at e t hathe w as p r eju d ic e d b yh is in a b i l i t y to file a p e tit io n fo rce r tio r a r i. SeeChri s t ophe rv. Harbu ry , 5 3 6 U .S . 4 0 3 , 4 1 6 (2 0 0 2 ). S h e id a r g u e s th a t t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld n o t h a v e d is m is s e d h is i n di vi du alcapaci t y cl ai m s agai n stt h e defen da n tm arsh a ls on groun ds of qua l i f i e d i m m uni t y pr i o rt o a l l o w i ng hi m t o conduc tdi s c o ve r y ands e r ve t he de fe nda nt s . H e ur ge s t hatt he c o ur tfail e d t o a ddr e s s c l ai m s o f s ubs t ant ive a nd pro c edur alpr oc es s vi ol at i ons al l eg e di n hi s c o m p l a i nt ; t hatt he c our ts houl d have consi dered the sub st an t ive consti t u t i on alcl ai m s r ai sed in th e § 225 4 peti t i on r at hert han basi ng i t s prej udi c e a nal ys i s on t he fac tt hatt he pet i t i on w as di s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e ly ; a n dt h att he c o ur ti m pr o pe r l y c o ns i de r e d m at t e r s o ut s i de th e p l ea d i n gs w h en i t too k ju d i ci a ln oti ce of th e crim i n a la n d fed era la n d state p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r ly in gth is la w s u it. A n y errori n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o rai se t h e i ssue of qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y on i t s ow n m ot i on pri or t o di scovery an d s ervi ce of process i s harm l ess becau se t h e i den t i t y of t h e “ D oe” d efen da n t s i s i rrel evan tt o t h e deter m i n ati on th a t S h e id w a s n o t p r eju d ic e d b yth e ira lle g e d in te r fe r e n c e in h is a b ilityto file a pe tition f

or c ert i oraribecau se t h e i ssues on w h i ch h e w i shed t o seek revi ew w ere m eritl es s . S e e B a z r o w xv . S c o tt, 136 F. 3d 1053, 1054 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ; see als o B r e w s t e rv. D r e t ke , 5 8 7 F .3 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 8 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id
n otfai lt o add ress Sh ei d’ s c la im s of substantive an d p rocedural du e process vi o l at i on s, b uti tpr o pe r l y he l d t hat , a c c e pt i ng t ho s e a l l e ga t i o ns a s t r ue , t he
c om pl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e ac l ai m f orr el i ef be c ause Shei d w as notprej udi c ed by t h e d e fe n d a n ts ’a c tio n s . S ee Harbu ry , 5 36 U
. S. a t4 15

- 16
. As She i d d o e s not expl ai n how t he f

ede r alhabeas c our tan d th i s cou r ter r ed i n det er m i ni ng t hat h is § 2 2 5 4 p e t it io n w a s u n t im e ly , h is s u g g e s t io n th a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
a s s e s s m e n t o f p r eju d ic e s h o u ld h a v e a d d r e s s e d th e s u b s ta n tiv e cla im s ra is e d in Case: 09-20428 Document: 00511117636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 20428

3 t h e federalpeti t i on i s m eri t l ess. Th e di st ri ctdi d n oterrby taki n g j u di ci alnoti ce o f th e s ta te a n d fe d e r a l p r o c e e d in g s a t is s u e in t h is la w s u it. Se eCunni ngh am v. D i st ri ctA t t orney’

s Of f i ce , 592 F. 3d 1237, 1255 (11 th C i r . 2010) ; Moo r ev. Este lle , 5 2 6 F .2 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). D i s m is s a l o f th e co m p la in t is AF F I RMED. S h e i d ’ s mo t i o n f

o ra p p o i n t me n to f

a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e li s DE NI ED
. Case: 09-20428 Document: 00511117636 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2010