Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41295 Su m m ar yC al endar F EL I XLHEA RN Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. PAR IS P O L IC E D E P AR T M E N T ; KAR LL E W IS , C h i ef, P a ri s P olice D ep a rtm en t; S TE PHEN HO LM ES , S e r g e a n tBa d g e 1 5 5 Pa r i s Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t ; T HO M AS BRAND ENB U RG H, P a t r o l ma n B a d g e 2 0 9 P a r i s P o l i c e De p a r t me n t ; L EI GH FO RE M AN , Pat r o l m an Badg e 2 25 Par i s Po l i c e D e pa r t m e nt ; J EF F JON ES, S erg ea n t P a ri s P oli ce D ep a rtm en t 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. 4: 08- C V
- 184 B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Proc ee di ng pro se , F e l i x L. H e ar n, T e xa s pr i s o ne r# 14 12 28 0, a ppe al s t he di s m i s s alo f

hi s 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 98 3 com pl ai nt . I n di s t r i c tc o ur t , H e ar n c l ai m e d: he w as i m pro per l y ar r es t ed af t er he w as as sa ul t ed o n hi s ow n pro per t y; he had United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D November

13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41295

2 a r i ghtt o de fe nd h i m s e l f a nd h i s fam i l y ag ai ns ta n i nt r ude r ; t he a r r e s t i ng o ffic e r s fa ile dto in v e s tig a t e t h e cir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in gth e in c id e n t; h is w i t nes s’st at em ent s w er e no ti ncl uded i n t he s t at e r ec or d; and he w as i m pr o pe r l y i nduc e d t o w aivehi s r i ghtt o a ppe alh i s c r i m i nalc o nvic t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d the de fe nda nt s ’s um m ary-j udg m e ntm o t i o n, ho l di ng H ear n’ s c l ai m s c ons t i t ut ed a c hal l enge t o hi s c onvi c t i on and w er e b ar r ed by Heck v. Hu mph rey , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 9 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ). A d d itio n a lly , t h e co u r t r u le dth e P a r is P oli ce D ep a rtm en t w a s n ot a lega len tity su bj ect to su i t. H earn ’ s s can tapp el l ate bri ef, consi st i n g pri m ari l y of f ragm en t s, does not cha l l en ge t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason s f or di sm i ssi n g h i s c l ai m s. Fed eralR u l e of A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 2 8 (a )(9 ) r e q u ir e s th e a p p e lla n t’s b r ie f c o n ta in h is “con ten ti on s and the rea son s f or th em , w i thci tati on s to the au th oriti es a n dpa rts of t h e rec ord on w h i ch the ap pel l an t r e li e s” an d “f or each i ssue, a conci se s t at e m e ntof

t he appli c ab l e st and ar d o f r e vi e w ” . “Al t ho ughw e l ibe r all y c o ns t r ue b rie fs o f pro sel i t i ga nt s a nd a pply l e s s s t r i nge nts t and ar ds t o pa r t i e s pr o c e e di ng pro se th a n to p a r tie s r e p r e s e n te d b yco u n s e l, pro sepa r t i e s m us ts t i l lb r i e f t he i ssu es an d rea son a b l y co m p l y w i ththe stan d a rd s of R u l e 2 8 . ” G r antv. Cue l lar , 59 F. 3d 523, 5 2 4 (5th C i r . 1995) . Furt her m or e, ourc our tw i l lnotr ai sel egal is s u e s H e a r n h a s fa ile dto a s s e r t; s u c h is s u e s a r e d e e m e da b a n d o n e d . E . g. , B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 13 F . 2d7 44, 7 48 (5t h C i r. 1 9 8 7 ). I n sum , H ear n doe s not c ont end hi s c l ai m s di d notc ons t i t ut e ac hal l enge t o hi s c on vi ct i on or t h at th e P a ris P ol i ce D epa rt m en tconst i t u t ed a p roper defenda n t . H is on l y st atem en tt h at arguab l y rai ses a cha l l en ge t o t h e di st ri ct co u rt’s p ro ce e d in gis th e g e n e ra l as se rtio n s th a t th e co u rt re q u ire d h im to s a tisfy s t a n d a r d s a n dd e a d li n e s t h a tw e r e im p o s s ib le in th e lig h to f H e a r n ’s i n carcer ati on . H earn does not provi de an y spe ci f i cs, how ever, such a s w h i ch d e a d lin e h e w a s u n a b le to m e e t.N o. 08- 41295

3 H e a r n ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t m e r it a n dis th e r e fo r e fr iv o lo u s . S ee How ard v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9

– 2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is d is m is s e d . 5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. H ear n i s w ar ned: the di sm i ss alof t hi s appeal c o u n ts a s as tr ik e fo rp u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee A depegba v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 7

– 8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). H e a r n is a ls o w a r n e dth a t if h e accum u l ates t h ree s t rikes, he w i llnot be al l ow ed to bri n g a civi lact i on or a p p ea la jud gm en t i n f o r m a p aup e r i s u n less he i s “u n der i m m i n en tdan ger of se rio u s p h y sica l i nju ry”. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED .