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, 

Defendants–Appellees.

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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. 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: 08/08/2019
No. 17-20815

2

appointment of counsel and to amend his complaint to add additional parties.

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

I

Steven Wallace Hopkins, a pretrial detainee at the Harris County Jail, 

SPN # 02864869, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against Kim Ogg, the 

Harris County, Texas District Attorney; Devon Anderson, the former Harris 

County District Attorney; Ed Gonzalez, the Harris County Sheriff; Greg 

Abbott, the Governor of Texas; Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas; the 

Pueblo County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office; Prisoner Transportation Services 

(PTS) of America, LLC; and five unnamed PTS of America employees. He 

sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. 

Hopkins then moved to amend his complaint to add individuals from the Public 

Defender’s office as defendants.

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

filed 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 floor” 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 of 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: 08/08/2019
No. 17-20815

3

jails. He maintained that his personal items and legal paperwork were left 

behind at a jail in Charleston, 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 Abbott 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, prosecution, 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. 

He 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 parties. 

We review the dismissal de novo.2 A complaint fails 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 allow 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: 08/08/2019
No. 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, 

unwarranted 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 Hopkins’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 for failing to state a claim, and having 

considered all of Hopkins’s claims, 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 Jail 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 conduct 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) (internal 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: 08/08/2019
No. 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 Jail, 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-property 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 explain 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. Klevenhagen, 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/pretrial detainee failed to show that he was denied 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: 08/08/2019
No. 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 Jail. 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 argument regarding 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. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (citations

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: 08/08/2019
No. 17-20815

7

criminal case is resolved.20 The Harris County District Clerk website indicates 

that Hopkins was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of an 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 lawsuit 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 mentioned Heck in his Notice of Appeal, he simply asserted that as of 

the time the district court dismissed his appeal “there has been no conviction 

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

argument, and has not contended that the district court should have stayed 

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 

litigants 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, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, 

and Hopkins’s motions for the appointment of counsel and to amend his 

complaint to add parties 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 FED. R. APP. 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