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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60375

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM T BUSICK

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN NEAL; E AVERY ROLLINS; BRENDA PERRY; MRS CHARLES ESCO;

CHUCK MCNEAL; TOBY TROWBRIDGE; ARTHUR THOMPSON; MRS FRED

ESCO; CLINT KINER; JANIKA MEOSHA CHEERS; JOHN A EMFREY; MEL

COXWELL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-483

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William T. Busick, Mississippi prisoner # 84027, brought this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as other federal and state law, against:

(1) the City of Madison, Mississippi, and six members of the Madison Police

Department, Chief of Police Gene Waldrup, Lieutenant Eric C. Palmer,

Lieutenant Catherine Reese, Investigator Mike Brown, Officer Stephen Patrick,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

2

and Officer Paul Bunch (the Madison City Defendants); (2) Special Agent David

Scott Dufour and Special Agent E. Avery Rollins of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation; (3) Lieutenant David W. Ruth and Detective Jeff N. Robertson of

the Brandon, Mississippi, Police Department (the Brandon Defendants);

(4) Detective John Neal of the Ridgeland, Mississippi, Police Department;

(5) Madison County, Mississippi, Sheriff Toby Trowbridge, Jr., and seven

members of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department, Madison County

Detention Center Administrator Jed Womack, Madison County Detention

Center Warden Arthur Thompson, Deputy Sheriff Jim Frazier, Lieutenant Clint

Kiner, Lieutenant Brenda Perry, Mail Handler Mrs. Charles Esco, and Booking

Officer Janika Meosha Cheers (the Madison County Defendants); and (6) ADA

Emfrey and ADA Coxwell. Busick appeals the district court’s dismissal of some

of his claims and the magistrate judge’s dismissal and grant of summary

judgment on the remainder of his claims.

Busick argues that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing his claims

against Detective Neal. He maintains that he stated a viable claim against

Detective Neal for malicious prosecution based upon Detective Neal’s charging

him with credit card fraud and falsely testifying at a preliminary hearing after

Detective Neal promised that he would not be charged with credit card fraud if

he gave Detective Neal information about another suspect. He contends that the

malicious prosecution claim is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994), because the credit card fraud charge was nolle prossed. He maintains

that he was harmed by Detective Neal’s actions because the additional charge

against him caused him to be held on excessive bail. He asserts that the credit

card fraud charge against him somehow caused him to be subjected to excessive

force while in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections following

his conviction on a separate burglary charge. He further argues that his

allegations against Detective Neal set forth a viable claim under Mississippi law.

For the first time on appeal, Busick contends that his allegations against

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

3

Detective Neal stated a viable retaliation claim because Detective Neal brought

the credit card fraud charge against him only because of his civil litigation

against other law enforcement officers.

Busick acknowledges that the credit card fraud charge against him was

nolle prossed; accordingly, the statement he made to Detective Neal was not

used against him at trial, and Busick thus cannot raise a Fifth Amendment

claim against Detective Neal for making an unkept promise of leniency. See

Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 285 n.11 (5th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Busick’s

allegations against Detective Neal do not shock the conscience and cannot

support a Fourteenth Amendment claim; accepting Busick’s allegations and

averments as true, Detective Neal’s broken promise resulted only in there being

a credit card fraud charge pending against Busick for a time while he was being

held on other charges and then being dismissed. See Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d

483, 485 (5th Cir. 2007). To the extent that Busick sought to raise a general

malicious prosecution claim independent from a claim based upon a specific

constitutional amendment, no such federal law claim exists. See Castellano v.

Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 949-61 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

While Busick notes that bail was set on the credit card fraud charge,

Busick’s allegations show that he was also being held on a burglary charge and

later a burglary conviction during the entire time that the credit card fraud

charge was pending. As the credit card fraud charge was dismissed and Busick

was not ever detained on that charge, Busick did not allege that he was damaged

by Detective Neal’s actions, and, therefore, his Mississippi law claim of malicious

prosecution failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Tebo

v. Tebo, 550 F.3d 492, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2008).

While Busick argues in this court that Detective Neal initiated the

prosecution of the credit card fraud charge against him in retaliation for his civil

litigation against other law enforcement officers, he did not raise this retaliation

claim in district court. As this claim was not raised in the district court, it

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

4

cannot be considered on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d

339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Busick argues that the magistrate judge erred by granting summary

judgment on his claims that the Madison County Defendants violated his

constitutional rights by denying him access to the courts. He maintains that his

access to the courts was denied because he was allowed to use the legal library

at the Madison County Detention Center only once for 30 minutes during the 11

months he was incarcerated at that facility. He contends that his lack of access

to the law library prejudiced him in three civil suits in the district court: the

present case; Busick v. City of Magee, No. 3:00-CV-327; and Busick v. Lamar

County, No. 2:02-CV-90. He asserts that he would have maintained claims

against certain defendants in City of Magee if he had access to the law library,

that his lack of access to the law library regarding the Lamar County case

somehow caused the Mississippi Department of Corrections to subsequently

change his time sheets to show that he is serving a 25-year sentence as a

habitual offender, and that his lack of access to the law library prevented him

from prevailing on his claims against Special Agent Dufour, Special Agent

Rollins, the City of Madison Defendants, the City of Brandon Defendants, and

Deputy Sheriff Frazier in the present case. For the first time on appeal, Busick

argues that the Madison County Defendants denied him access to the courts by

denying him proper medication, which prejudiced his self-representation at his

criminal burglary trial. He contends that the actions of the Madison County

Defendants violated both the federal and state constitutions.

Busick alleged that he was incarcerated in the Madison County Detention

Center from January 18, 2002, until October 2 as a pretrial detainee and

remained at the Madison County Detention Center after his conviction until

December 15, 2002. Busick voluntarily dismissed the City of Magee case on

April 25, 2001. While incarcerated at the Madison County Detention Center,

Busick filed a motion to vacate the order granting the voluntary dismissal. The

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

5

district court granted the motion, but it involuntarily dismissed Busick’s

complaint in that case on April 24, 2002. Busick states that he would have

proceeded further in that case if he had access to the law library, but he does not

explain how he would have proceeded, what claims he would have raised, or how

those claims were meritorious. As Busick has not demonstrated that he was

prevented from raising a nonfrivolous legal claim in City of Magee, he has not

shown the existence of a viable denial of access to the courts claim in conjunction

with that case. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996).

Busick filed his complaint in the Lamar County case on April 8, 2002,

while he was incarcerated at the Madison County Detention Center. Busick

subsequently filed so many amended complaints, attachments, and motions in

that case that on August 27, 2002, the magistrate judge ordered that he not file

any further pleadings with the court until further order. That case proceeded

until it was dismissed on Busick’s oral motion on April 14, 2003, well after

Busick was no longer incarcerated at the Madison County Detention Center. As

this case was not dismissed until well after Busick was no longer incarcerated

at the Madison County Detention Center, Busick has not shown that the actions

of the Madison County Defendants prevented him from raising a nonfrivolous

claim in this case. As Busick has not demonstrated that the Madison County

Defendants’ actions prevented him from raising a nonfrivolous legal claim in

Lamar County, he has not shown the existence of a viable denial of access to the

courts claim in conjunction with that case. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

Busick’s assertion that the actions of the Madison County Defendants

prejudiced his ability to prosecute the present civil action is also without merit.

Busick’s third amended complaint, the complaint that was considered in the

district court, was filed on January 21, 2005, years after Busick left the Madison

County Detention Center. While Busick alleges that his lack of access to the law

library at the Madison County Detention Center inhibited his ability to

successfully pursue his claims against Special Agent Dufour, Special Agent

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

6

Rollins, the City of Madison Defendants, the City of Brandon Defendants, and

Deputy Sheriff Frazier, those claims were not dismissed until September 22,

2005, almost three years after Busick was last incarcerated at the Madison

County Detention Center. As Busick has not demonstrated that the Madison

County Defendants’ actions prevented him from raising a nonfrivolous legal

claim in the present case, he has not shown the existence of a viable denial of

access to the courts claim in conjunction with this case. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at

351.

While Busick argues in this court that the Madison County Defendants

denied him access to the courts by denying him his proper medication, Busick

did not raise this claim in the district court. As this claim was not raised in the

district court, it cannot be considered on appeal. See Leverette, 183 F.3d at 342.

To the extent that Busick argues that the district court erred by granting

summary judgment on his related state law claims, he has neither cited to any

state law authority nor provided any argument regarding state law. As Busick

has not sufficiently briefed his state law claims, they are deemed waived. See

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Busick argues that the magistrate judge erred by granting summary

judgment on his claims that the Madison County Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to a serious risk of harm to him by failing to protect him from other

inmates. Busick alleges that Lt. Perry stood outside his four-man cell while an

inmate named Van Buren made a mixture of human feces and shaving cream

and threw it on him through the closed door of his individual cell, causing acid

burns. He states that Lt. Perry did not tell Van Buren to stop and asked Van

Buren to leave the four-man cell only after the attack. Busick maintains that

these facts show that Lt. Perry was deliberately indifferent to his safety. 

Busick argues that Lt. Kiner was deliberately indifferent to the risk that

inmate Paul Smith, who assaulted Busick, posed to his safety while at the

Madison County Detention Center. He states that Smith was removed from his

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

7

four-man cell, but returned to that cell prior to the assault. He maintains that

he told Lt. Kiner prior to the assault that Smith was a threat to him because he

would not tell Smith about his legal activities. Busick states that after Smith’s

assault on him, Smith was placed back in his four-man cell again, despite the

fact that the cell was a medical cell and Smith had no medical needs. He

contends that Smith was repeatedly placed in his cell to gather information

about his legal activities.

While Busick averred that Lt. Perry had notice that Van Buren had made

an unspecified verbal threat against him, he did not present any evidence that

Lt. Perry had knowledge that he faced a substantial risk of physical harm from

Van Buren. See Little v. Spears, No. 94-60828, 1995 WL 313938 at *2 (5th Cir.

May 2, 1995) (unpublished); see also 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3. Additionally, Busick

arguably contradicted his written averments at a hearing when he testified that

he did not have any problems with Van Buren before the assault and admitted

that the assault may have been spontaneous. While Busick argues in this court

that Lt. Perry witnessed the assault but did not intervene, he did not raise this

claim in the district court. As this claim was not raised in the district court, it

cannot be considered on appeal. See Leverette, 183 F.3d at 342. As Busick did

not present evidence showing that any of the Madison County Defendants had

knowledge of facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm to him presented

by Van Buren and made the inference that a substantial risk existed, he has not

shown that the magistrate judge erred by granting summary judgment on this

claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Although Busick averred that Lt. Kiner had knowledge of a verbal

altercation between Busick and Smith the day before the assault, he did not

present any evidence that Lt. Kiner had knowledge that Smith presented a

substantial risk of physical harm to Busick before the assault. See Little, 1995

WL 313938 at *2. Busick’s averments that Smith was placed in his four-man

cell to spy on his legal activities were insufficient to defeat the motion for

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

8

summary judgment because “mere conclusory allegations are not competent

summary judgment evidence, and such allegations are insufficient . . . to defeat

a motion for summary judgment.” Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir.

1996). While the evidence arguably showed that there was a genuine issue of

fact as to whether Lt. Kiner was deliberately indifferent to a risk substantial

harm to Busick when he moved Smith back into the four-man cell after the

assault, Busick did not allege that Smith physically assaulted him again. As

Busick was not physically harmed by Smith after Smith was returned to the cell,

he cannot maintain a claim for the return of Smith to the cell. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e). As Busick did not present evidence showing that any of the Madison

County Defendants had knowledge of facts showing a substantial risk of serious

harm to him presented by Smith and made the inference that a substantial risk

existed, he has not shown that the magistrate judge erred by granting summary

judgment on this claim. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

To the extent that Busick argues that the district court erred by granting

summary judgment on his related state law claims, he has neither cited to any

state law authority nor provided any argument regarding state law. As Busick

has not sufficiently briefed his state law claims, they are deemed waived. See

Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Busick argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment

on his claims that the Madison County Defendants interfered with his legal

mail. He maintains that the Madison County Defendants interfered with his

legal mail by refusing to provide postage for all of the legal mail that he wished

to send and by reading legal mail sent by, and addressed to, him. He contends

that he was prejudiced when the Madison County Defendants read the

complaint he filed in the Lamar County case because they told the defendants

in the Lamar County case about the complaint. He asserts that he was

prejudiced when the Madison County Defendants opened and read the notice

from the prosecutor that he was being charged as a habitual offender in his

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

9

criminal cases because the Madison County Defendants were checking to see if

they had succeeded in getting him charged as a habitual offender in retaliation

for his filing civil litigation. In addition to his allegations of prejudice, Busick

argues that he should not have been required to show prejudice because he was

completely deprived of all access to legal materials.

Contrary to his assertions, Busick has not presented evidence showing

that he was prejudiced by the Madison County Defendants’ alleged interference

with his legal mail. As Busick has not made any showing that he was prevented

from raising any nonfrivolous legal argument due to interference with his legal

mail, Busick cannot show that the Madison County Defendants denied him

access to the courts by interfering with his legal mail. Ruiz v. United States, 160

F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). Busick’s argument that his claim is sufficient

without a showing of actual injury is without merit. See id.

To the extent that Busick is raising his interference with legal mail claim

as a freedom of speech claim, he cannot prevail as he has not alleged that any

of his incoming or outgoing mail was censored. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, No. 94-

10380, 1995 WL 581939 at *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 1995) (unpublished). To the

extent that Busick argues that the district court erred by granting summary

judgment on his related state law claims, he has neither cited to any state law

authority nor provided any argument regarding state law. As Busick has not

sufficiently briefed his state law claims, they are deemed waived. See Yohey, 985

F.2d at 224-25.

Busick argues that the magistrate judge erred by granting summary

judgment on his freedom of religion claims under the First Amendment, the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000cc-1(a), and the Mississippi Constitution. Busick asserts that the affidavit

of McNeal that was submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment

was false and contradicted by the affidavit he submitted in response to the

motion for summary judgment, creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

10

Busick contends that the policy instituted by the Madison County Defendants

requiring all magazines and books sent to inmates to be from Tyndale

Publishing Company violated his rights to religious freedom because Tyndale did

not offer free bibles to inmates while respected religious organizations contacted

by Busick did offer free bibles. He maintains that this policy prevented him from

practicing his religion because he was indigent and could not afford to order a

bible from Tyndale. 

Busick sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory

and injunctive relief. To the extent that Busick sought compensatory damages

on his freedom of religion claims, his claims were barred by § 1997e(e) because

he did not allege that he suffered a physical injury. See Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t

of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 605-06 (5th Cir. 2008). As Busick has long

since been transferred away from the Madison County Detention Center and

there is no indication that he will return to that facility, his claims for

declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660,

665 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Busick did not request nominal damages, his

freedom of religion claims could not survive summary judgment on that basis.

See Mayfield, 529 F.3d at 606. As Busick did not present any evidence that the

actions of the Madison County Defendants regarding his freedom of religion

claims were callous or motivated by evil intent, he could not recover punitive

damages on these claims. See Sockwell v. Phelps, 20 F.3d 187, 192 (5th Cir.

1994). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary

judgment on Busick’s federal law freedom of religion claims on the alternative

basis that Busick could not receive any form of requested relief on those claims.

See Mayfield, 529 F.3d at 605-06.

To the extent that Busick argues that the district court erred by granting

summary judgment on his related state law claims, he has neither cited to any

state law authority nor provided any argument regarding state law. As Busick

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

11

has not sufficiently briefed his state law claims, they are deemed waived. See

Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Arguing that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against the

Madison City Defendants, Special Agent Dufour, Special Agent Rollins, the

Brandon Defendants, and Deputy Sheriff Frazier, Busick maintains that the

district court should have dismissed the claims it found to be barred by Heck

without prejudice instead of with prejudice. He asserts that his claims against

the Madison City Defendants did not challenge the validity of his conviction and

were not barred by Heck because he initially filed this action before he was

convicted and that his claims against the Brandon Defendants were not barred

by Heck because they concerned the conversion of his personal property, not the

validity of his conviction. Similarly, he argues that his claims against Special

Agent Dufour for shooting at him and his claims against the Madison City

Defendants for refusing to criminally prosecute Special Agent Dufour were not

barred by Heck because they would not undermine his conviction. Finally, he

asserts that the knee injury he suffered running from Special Agent Dufour

constituted a physical injury that he sustained from the defendants and that his

claims against Deputy Sheriff Frazier should not have been dismissed.

Busick’s claims against the Madison City Defendants, Special Agent

Dufour, and Special Agent Rollins for bringing false charges against him, for

making false statements concerning the charges, for conspiring to conceal facts

concerning Special Agent Dufour’s allegedly shooting at Busick, and for Special

Agent Rollins serving as the temporary foreman of the grand jury were related

to the investigation and prosecution of the burglary charge for which Busick was

convicted. As the alleged unlawfulness of the defendants’ actions would call the

conviction into question and the conviction has not been overturned or otherwise

invalidated, the district court correctly concluded that the claims were barred.

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The district court correctly dismissed those claims

with prejudice. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283-84 (5th Cir. 1994).

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 07-60375

12

The district court dismissed Busick’s claims against the Brandon

Defendants for conversion of his personal property on the ground that these

claims were state law conversion claims, not constitutional claims. It dismissed

Busick’s claims against Special Agent Dufour for shooting at him and injuring

his knee on the ground that Special Agent Dufour was not acting as a federal

employee or a state actor at the time of those actions. As Busick has not

addressed the reasoning supporting the district court’s dismissal of these claims,

he has waived any challenge he could have brought to their dismissal. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

Busick’s claims that the Madison County Defendants refused to criminally

prosecute Special Agent Dufour were frivolous as Busick “does not have a

constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted.” Oliver v. Collins,

914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Busick’s claims against Deputy Sheriff Frazier

did not set forth facts showing a constitutional violation, and the district court

did not err by dismissing them. See Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 847 F.2d

221, 224 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 07-60375 Document: 00511122897 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/26/2010