### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 20815

STEVEN WALLACE HOPKINS , Plaintiff

–

Appellant ,

v. KIM OGG; ED GONZALEZ; GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; KEN PAXTON; PUEBLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, PTS OF AMERICA, L.L.C.; DEVON ANDERSON,

Defendant s

– Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CV

- 3423

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Steven Wallace Hopkins , a pretrial detainee at the Harris County , Texas Jail, appeals the dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his 42
U.S .C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. He has also moved for the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

2 appointment of counsel and to amend his complaint to add additional part ies

. We affirm the district court’s dismissal and deny Hopkins’s motion s

. I Steven Wallace Hopkins, a pretrial detainee at the Harris County Jail, SPN # 02864869, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against Ki m Ogg, the Harris County, Texas District Attorney ; Devon Anderson, the former Harris County District Attorney; Ed Gonzale z, the Harris County Sheriff; Greg Abbo t t, the Governor of Texas; Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Tex as; the Pueblo County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office; Prisoner Transportation Services (PTS) of America, LLC; and five unnamed PTS of America employees. H e sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Hopkins then moved to amend his complaint to add individuals from the P ublic
D efender ’s office as defendant s

. In his complaint, Hopkins alleged that on an unspecified date Anderson
f

iled a “bogus” charge against him. As a result of this filing, Hopkins was “falsely arrest[ed]” on August 26, 2016, by the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Office. Despite being “informed of [his] medical condition,” the arresting officers “threw [him] on the flo or” and “pull[ed] his right arm forcefully behind his back.” Hopkins claimed that he “hit his head on the bed” and “injur[ed] his right shoulder.” Five PTS o f America employees then “kidnap [ed]” Hopkins and transported him from Pueblo, Colorado, to the Harris County Jail in Houston, Texas. Hopkins alleged that he was forced to ride in a “van with solid seats” while in “leg irons [] and handcuffs.” Even though he was dressed in a t

- shirt and shorts, Hopkins was not provided blankets for warmth. Hopkins also claimed that he was provided an inadequate quantity of food and water. During the trip, Hopkins was detained during “pit stops” at various county Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

3 jails. He maintained that his personal items and legal paperwork were left behind at a jail in Charles ton, Missouri. On November 25, 2016, Hopkins arrived at the Harris County Jail. Hopkins alleged that he was denied access to a law library from August to November 2016. According to Hopkins, Ogg continued to prosecute him even though she knew that the charge against him was false. Sheriff Gonzalez illegally confined Hopkins in the Harris County Jail on the unconstitutional charge. Governor Ab b ott was also responsible for his illegal confinement. The district court, acting sua sponte, dismissed Hopkins ’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In doing so, the district court concluded that “Hopkins’s claims on his arrest, pro secution, and confinement” were barred by Heck v. Humphrey

. 1 The district court further concluded that Hopkins’s remaining claims did not assert a constitutional violation because they were “minor” and “short

- lived.” Hopkins filed a timely notice of appeal.
H e challenges the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He also moves for the appointment of counsel and to amend his complaint to add additional part ies

. We review the dismissal de novo. 2 A complaint f ails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 3 A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts that allo w a court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 4

1 512 U.S. 477 (1994 )

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

. 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4 Id. (citation omitted). Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

4 All well

- pleaded facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. 5 However, this court will “not accept as true conclusory allegations,

unw arranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” 6 As a preliminary matter, the district court apparently did not consider Hopkins’s claims against Devon Anderson , PTS, and PTS employees when dismissing Hopkins’s case. The defendants were named in Hop kins’s complaint but never served , and the district court did not mention them in its opinion. However, under § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii) , the district court was entitled to dismiss the entire case at any time fo r failing to state a claim, and having
considered a ll of Hopkins’s claim s , the district court’s judgment should be affirmed

. 7
II Hopkins contends that his personal items and legal paperwork were left at the Mississippi County J ail in Charleston, Missouri, and that the employees of the jail have since disposed of his property

. “Under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest caused by a state employee’s random, unauthorized cond uct does not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim, unless the State fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy.” 8 The Parratt/Hudson doctrine protects the State from liability under § 1983 for failures to provide pre

- deprivation due process in situations in which the State cannot anticipate the random and

5 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig. , 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).
6 Gentilello v. Rege , 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) ( citation omitted).
7 LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County , 289 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (“[W]e may affirm for reasons other than those relied upon by the district court.”).
8 Allen v. Thomas , 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004) (intern al quotation marks omitted) (citing Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor , 451 U.S. 527, 541

- 44 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990))

. Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

5 unauthorized actions of its officers. 9 The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the State’s post

- deprivation remedy is inadequate. 10 Hopkins has made no such showing. 11 Moreover , to the extent Hopkins seeks damages from the employees of the Mississippi County J ail, those employees were not named as a party in his lawsuit. Therefore, Hopkins has not demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing his loss

- of

- prop erty claim for failure to state
a claim. 12
III Similarly unavailing is Hopkins’s argument that he was “denied access to [the] court [and] law library.” This argument is conclusory and insufficient to support a cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts

. 13 Even if this court assumes that Hopkins has adequately briefed the issue in his notice of appeal, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief on this claim. A prisoner’s right of access to the courts is limited to “the ability of an inmate to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court.” 14 In addition, a prisoner must show that “his position as a litigant was prejudiced by his denial of access to the courts.” 15 Hopkins has made no showing of prejudice as he does not exp lain how he would have proceeded with access to a law library, what claims he would have raised, or how those claims would have

9 Myers v. Kleven hagen , 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).
10 Id.
11 See id.
12 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

. 13 See Gentilello v. Rege , 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010); Terry v. Hubert , 609 F.3d 757, 761

- 62 (5th Cir. 2010).

14 Eason v. Thaler , 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996 ) ( citation omitted); see also Terry , 609 F.3d at 761

- 62 (reiterating the same principle in a pretrial detainee case).
15 Eason , 73 F.3d at 1328 (citation omitted) ; see also Terry , 609 F.3d at 762 (concluding that plaintiff/pretri al detainee failed to show that he was d enied access to the courts when “he was not prejudiced in his ability to file a legally sufficient claim”). Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

6 been meritorious. Accordingly, Hopkins has not established that the district court erred in dismissing his claim for denial of access to the courts. 16
IV For the first time on appeal, Hopkins asserts that he was denied medical

care for the injuries he suffered during his arrest and an illness he suffered while confined in the Mississippi County J ail. Because he did not raise a
denial

- of

- medical

- care claim in the district court, we will not consider it on appeal

. 17
V Hopkins does not brief any argument involving his allegations pertaining to the excessive use of force and his conditions of confinement . By failing to brief any a rgument r egarding these claims, Hopkins has abandoned them on appeal. 18
VI
In Heck , the Supreme Court directed that, “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal ” or otherwise invalidated by official action. 19 If a pretrial detainee brings claims that may ultimately be barred by Heck , the best practice is for the district court to stay the proceedings until the pending

16 See Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678; Terry , 609 F.3d at 762; Eason , 73 F.3d at 1328.
17 See Leverette v. Louisvill e Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation s omitted) (noting that, absent extraordinary circumstances, this court will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal).
18 See Mapes v. Bishop , 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
19 Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 , 486

- 87 (1994). Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/08/2019No. 17

- 20815

7 criminal case is resolved. 20 The Harris County District Clerk website indicates that Hopkins was convicted of aggravated se xual assault of a n elderly or
disabled victim on March 8 , 2019. Hopkins’s appeal is currently pending in
state court. Accordingly , the district court’s Heck ruling was premature, and the court should have stayed Hopkins’s § 1983 law suit until his pending
criminal case was resolved. However, Hopkins does not mention, much less meaningfully address, the district court’s Heck bar analysis in his appellate brief

. Although Hopkins briefly mention ed Heck in his Notice of Appeal, he simply asserted t hat as of the time the district court dismissed his appeal “there has been no conviction

to overturn thus nullifying Heck ,” but fail ed to otherwise provide analysis or

argu ment, and has not contended that the district court should have st ayed the proceedings in its court

. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed
that issue. 21 Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, “even pro se litiga nts must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” 22 Accordingly, Hopkins has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determination
that his claims are Heck barred. 23
* * * For the foregoing reasons, t he district court’s judgme nt is AFFIRMED, and Hopkins’s motion s for the appointment of counsel and to amend his complaint to add part ies are DENIED.

20 See Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384, 393

- 94 (2007); Mackey v. Dickson , 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995).
21 Brinkmann , 813 F .2d at 748

. 22 Mapes , 541 F.3d at 584 (citing Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993) and F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(9)).
23 See id. ; see also Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748. Case: 17-20815 Document: 00515069192 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/08/2019