P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40258 Su m m ar y Cal endar T HOM AS DUNN Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. J AMES P RI NCE ; JAMES MCCO RMI CK 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 th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V
- 117 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D E N N IS an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T h om a s D u n n , p rev i ou sly aT ex a s p retrial d eta i n ee at th e B ow i e C ou n ty C o r r e c tio n a l C e n te r( B C C C ), a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is 42 U . S . C . § 19 8 3 c o m p la in tpu rsuan tt o F ED . R. C IV . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ) a n d5 6 . T h is c o ur tr e vi e w s t he g r anto f am o t i o n t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o R u l e 1 2(b) ( 6) a nd a m o tio n fo r s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . S ee S h an ba u m v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 32 F. 3d 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); Frai re v. C i ty of A rl i ngt on , 957 F . 2d 126 8, 127 3 ( 5th C i r. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40258

2 199 2) . I n revi ew i n g a R u l e 12(b) ( 6) m ot i on , t h e “ court accepts al lw el l

- pl ead ed fac t s a s t r ue , v i e w i ng t he m i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he pl ai nt i f f, ” but“t he pl ai n t i f f m u stpl ead‘ en ou gh fact s t o st ate a c l ai m t o reli ef t h at i s pl au sibl e on i ts fa ce.’” In reK

atr i n a Can al B reaches Lit iga t i on , 495 F . 3d191 , 205 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( q uo t i ng B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 550 U . S. 544, 570, 127 S. C t . 1955, 1 9 7 4 (2 0 0 7 )), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 2 3 0 , an dce rt . den i ed , 128 S. C t . 1231 ( 20 08 ) . Sum m ar y j udg m en tis pr o pe r“i f t he pl e ad i ngs , t he di s c o ve r y and di s c l o s ur e m at e r i al s o n fi l e, a nd a ny af f i da vit s s ho w t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfactan d that t h e m ovan ti s entit l ed to ju d g m e n tas a m a tt e ro f la w .” R u le 5 6 (c ). C o n c lu s io n a l a lle g a tio n s , sp e c u la t i o n , im p r o b a b le i n ferences, or a m ere sci n t i l l a of evi den ce are i n suff

i ci en tt o defeat a s u m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n . Mi cha els v. A vi t ech, I n c. , 2 0 2 F .3d7 4 6 , 7 5 4 -5 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). D unn c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d i n rej e c t i ng hi s c l ai m s t hathe w a s fa l sely i m p ri son edw h en h e w a s h eld i n th e B C C C p ri or to h i s tri a l , de sp i te t h e factt h at B ow i e C ou n t yh a d c o n tract ed w i t h t h e T exas D epa rt m en tof C r im in a l J u s tic e -I n s tit u tio n a l D iv is io n(T D C J ) to h o u s e co n v ic te dp r is o n e r s in t hatfac i l i t y. Dunn al s o m ai nt ai ns t hathe w as fal s e l y i m pr i s o ne d f o ras e c o nd ti m e w h en h e w a s relea sed f rom cu stod y u n d er fel on y b on dcon d i ti on s d esp i te t h e factt h at he w as a rres t ed f or drivi n g w h i l e i n t oxi cat ed, w h i ch constit u t es a m i s de m e ano rund e rs t at e l aw. The di s t r i c t c o ur t pr o pe r l y he l d thatt o t he e xt e nt t h at D u n n w as chall en gi n g t h e st ate c ri m i n alproceedi n gs, he shou l d h ave f i l ed ap r e tr ia l h a b e a s p e tit io n . S ee D i c ke rs o n v . Lo ui s i ana , 81 6 F . 2 d22 0 , 22 3 -24 ( 5 th C i r. 198 7) . To the exten t t h a t D u n n ’ s c l ai m s ari se un der § 1983 , he i s not e nt i t l e d t o re l i e f. D unn has no r i ghtt o c o m pl ai n a bo utt he fac i l i t y i n whi c h he i s i nc ar c e r at e d abs e nta n as s e r t i o n t hat he ha d s uf fe r e d m o r e s e ve r e c o ndit i o ns a s afo r m o f p u n is h m e n t. S ee Tigh e v. W a ll , 100 F . 3d41, 42 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (per c u r ia m ); Parker v. Carpen t er , 978 F . 2d 190 , 192
- 93 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) . W i t h res pect t o t h e bon d cond i t i on s, D u n n ha s adm i t t ed that t h e coun t y of f i ci al s w ere aw are a t t h e tim e o f h is a r r e s t t h a t h e w a s are c i d i v i s tD W I d e fe n d a n t, r a is in gh isN o. 08- 40258

3 m i sde m eanorof

fens e t o afel ony; he has notes t abl i sh ed t hatt he St at e w as bou n d byhi s arr estreportt o consi der his of fen se as a m i sdem ean or. D unn m ai n t ai n s t hathe w as de ni e d a n a t t o r ne y f o rne ar l y t w o m o nt hs af t e rhi s a r r e s t . Suc h ac l ai m s o unds i n habe as and s ho ul d be r ai s e d i n s uc h a m o tio n . See D i ckers on , 8 1 6 F .2 da t 2 2 3 -2 4 . E v e n if th e cla im s w e r e p r o p e r ly p r e s e n te du n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , D u n n h a s n o t a lle g e daco n s t i t u t i o n a l v io la tio n . S ee B e r k e m e rv. McCa rty , 4 6 8 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 2 8 -2 9 (1 9 8 4 ); Un itedS ta tes v. G o u v eia , 4 6 7 U .S . 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 -8 9 (19 8 4 ). D unn a s s e r t s t hathi s i nc ar c e r at i o n i n aTD CJ c o nt r ac tf a c ilityvi o l at e s t he T h i rteen thA m en d m en t. H e h a s n ot est a b li sh edtha t he w a s su bj ected to in v o lu n ta r ys e rv itu d e o rs la v e r y . S ee W ats on v. G raves , 909 F . 2 d 1 5 49, 1552 ( 5th C i r. 199 0) . D u n n ’ s c on cl u si on alasser t i on th at he w as “ sol d” i n t o sl avery b e c a u s e B o w ie C o u n ty r e c e iv e s p a y m e n t fro m th e T D C J fo ra ll in d iv id u a ls h e ld in th e B C C C is in s u f f i c i e n t t o e s ta b lis h th a t D u n n is e n tit le dto re lie f. S ee Mich a els , 202 F. 3d at754- 55. D unn c o nt e nds t h at t he BC CC o f f i c i al s v i o l at e d hi s r i ghtt o c o r r e s po nd f r e e l y ab o utre l i gi o us m at t e r s w i t h pr i s o ne r s atot he rfac i l i t i e s . Al t ho ughD unn i s a p retrial d eta i n ee , the B C C C ’ s ru l es o n corre sp o n d e n ce a p p l y to h i m w i th e q u a l fo r c e . S ee Jon es v. D i am o nd , 5 94 F. 2d9 97 , 1 01 4 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 9) . The B C C C ’ s req u i rem en t th a t in te r -fa ci l i ty m a i lreq u i res th e con sen t of bo th w a r d e n s is are a s o n a b le re s tr ic tio n o n F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . S ee Turne rv. S afley , 482 U . S . 78, 81-82, 91 ( 198 7) . Th e factt h at D u n n ’ s l et t ers concerned r e l i gio us m at t e r s do e s no tpr o vi de g r e at e rpr o t e c t i o ns und e rt he Cons t i t ut i o n. S ee Po w ell v. Este lle , 9 5 9 F .2 d2 2 , 2 3 -2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), s upe rs e de d bys t at ut eas sta tedin D i azv . Col l i ns , 1 1 4 F .3d6 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). D u n n h a s a s s e r te dth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ldn o t h a v e co n s id e r e dh is all e ga t i o ns t hathe w as de ni e d f r e e m e di c al c ar e , m e al s , o ras af e e nvir o nm e nt du ri n g h i s s t ay i n t h e B ow i e C ou n t y j ai l . H e ha s t h u s w aivedt h ese c l ai m s of constit u t i on alv i ol ati on s. M oreover, b ecau se D u n n ha s not i den t i f i ed an y errorN o. 08- 40258

4 i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ej e c t i o n o f t he m e r i t s o f

t he cl ai m s , he has a ba ndo ne d a ny s u c h co n te n tio n . S ee B rin k m a n n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2d7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir, 1 9 8 7 ). D unn at t em pt s t o r ai sec l ai m s on be hal f of num er ous “i n n oc entt ax pa yer[] s” i n carcer ated i n t h e B C C C bef ore bei n g convic t ed. B ecau se he does n ot c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n t h a t h e la c k e ds ta n d in gto ra is e cla im s fo ro th e rp r e tr ia l d e ta in e e s , su c h cla im s a r e a b a n d o n e d . S ee i d. D u n n asser t s t h at th e app el l ees w rongly s t ated t h at he ha d not m ovedf or sum m ary j u dg m en t . A l t h ou gh he d i d requ estsuch rel ief, h e d id not est abli sh

“ t h at th ere i s no gen u i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfactan d that [h e] i s entit l ed to ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f la w .” R u l e 5 6 ( c ). T o th e e x te n t t h a t D u n n is assert i n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourterr e d in n o tadd ress i n g h i s m ot i on f or a d eclara toryj u d gm en t, the cou r t in fact h eld th a t he w a s n ot en titl edto d e c la r a to r yre lie f b e c a u s e h e w a s n o lo n g e rin c a r c e r a t e d a tth e B C C C . S ee He r m an v . Ho l i day , 238 F . 3d660 , 665 ( 5th C i r. 2 001 ) . D u n n ha s not est abli shed th a t h e w a s e n tit le dto co u n s e l inth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Ul m er v. C h a n ce l lor , 6 9 1 F .2d2 0 9 , 2 1 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). D unn has notes t abl i she d t hathe has pl eade d pl ausibl e c l ai m s ort hat gen u i n e i ssues of

m ater i alfactexi stprecl u di n g sum m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of th e d e fe n d a n ts . S eeR u le 5 6 (e ); K atr i n a Can al B reaches , 495 F . 3dat 205 . A s a r e s u l t , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.