United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-50327 

Summary Calendar 

Victor J. Edney, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Eondra Lamone Hines; Unknown Accomplice John Doe; 

Officer Jordan Wenkman; Officer Bobby King; Sergeant 

David Conley; Sergeant Keith Vaughan, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division 

USDC No. 6:18-CV-336 

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 23, 2020 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2020
Victor J. Edney, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the 

district court’s entry of final judgment in his lawsuit alleging violation of his 

civil rights. We AFFIRM. 

I. 

On April 24, 2018, City of Waco police received a report of a possible 

drowning and attempted suicide in a portion of the Brazos River that flows 

through a local park. When Officers Jordan Wenkman and Bobby King 

arrived, a crowd directed them to a man, later identified as Appellant Victor 

J. Edney, who was standing to his ankles in the water. Edney’s mother and 

uncle, Eondra Hines, identified themselves and told the officers that Edney 

was a Marine veteran suffering from schizophrenia and PTSD who had not 

been taking his medication. 

The officers, dressed in full patrol uniforms, identified themselves as 

Waco police officers and approached a seemingly “confused” Edney. 

Edney, apparently not believing them to be police officers despite their 

uniforms and announcement, asked the officers to identify themselves 

further. Eventually Edney came out of the water to the bank where the 

officers were. Once they were away from the water, Edney explained that he 

was in the water looking for his keys, though he was unable to explain how 

the keys wound up in the river and despite the fact that a set of keys were in 

his hand. Edney then explained that he was looking for a ball, and again 

contended that the officers were not actually police officers. 

Because of Edney’s disoriented behavior and explanations, as well as 

the initial report of a possible suicide, the officers decided to detain Edney 

while they attempted to determine if he posed a threat to himself or others. 

Officer Wenkman searched Edney before placing him in a patrol car and 

found a small unloaded firearm in his waistband and several ammunition 

rounds in his pocket. During the search, the officers observed that Edney 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2020
No. 20-50327 

3 

had become agitated and they suspected he was hallucinating. The officers 

gave Edney’s wallet to his mother, and Edney complained, explaining that 

the woman “could be anyone wearing a suit or disguised to look like his 

mother.” 

After determining that Edney was neither a threat to himself or others 

and finding no other reason to take him into custody, the officers retrieved 

Edney’s wallet from his mother and returned to him. However, because of 

his behavior, after verifying that Edney held a valid license to carry a firearm, 

his pistol was given to Hines with an understanding that it would be returned 

to Edney later. Following the incident, Appellant Sergeant Keith Vaughan 

submitted a revocation application to the Texas Department of Public Safety 

explaining that Edney’s firearm had been seized out of concern for his mental 

health.1 

Edney later filed a “citizen’s complaint” with the Waco police department alleging police misconduct. After an investigation, the officers were 

exonerated, and Edney’s complaint closed. Thereafter, Edney filed a lawsuit 

against Eondra Hines, an Unknown Accomplice John Doe, Officer Jordan 

Wenkman, Officer Bobby King, Sergeant David Conley, and Sergeant Keith 

Vaughan in federal district court alleging violations of his civil rights. In response to the lawsuit, Officer Wenkman, Officer King, Sergeant Conley, and 

Sergeant Vaughan filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) in which they raised the defense of qualified immunity.

1

 Under Texas state law, any officer who believes that a reason to revoke a license 

to carry exists is required to prepare an affidavit on a form provided by the Texas 

Department of Public Safety explaining the reason for the revocation. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 411.186(b). 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2020
No. 20-50327 

4 

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who determined that 

because Edney failed to plead facts showing that the officers clearly violated 

Edney’s established rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth 

Amendments, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The 

magistrate judge further determined that references in Edney’s pleadings to 

several sections of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the Texas 

Tort Claims Act, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and a Fifth Circuit 

case were all inapplicable to his claim that the officers violated his 

constitutional rights. Therefore, the magistrate judge determined that Edney 

failed to satisfy either prong of the qualified immunity analysis and 

recommended that the district court dismiss his claims with prejudice. 

Edney filed a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. The district court overruled the objection, accepted and 

adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and entered an 

order dismissing Edney’s claims against the officers with prejudice. 

Subsequently, Edney filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s 

order and a motion for miscellaneous relief.2 The officers filed a motion for 

entry of final judgement. The district court, finding no clear error in the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, again adopted the 

recommendation, declined to exercise jurisdiction over Edney’s state law 

claims against Appellees Hines and John Doe, entered an order of final 

judgment, and denied Edney’s motion of frivolous claims. This timely appeal 

followed. 

2

 Edney’s motion for miscellaneous relief alleged that relief should be granted via 

a “motion of frivolous claims” pursuant to Section 105.002 of the Texas Civil Practices 

and Remedies Code. 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/23/2020
No. 20-50327 

5 

II. 

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. In re 

Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a federal court may dismiss a 

complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A 

court must accept as true all well-pleaded, non-conclusory allegations in the 

complaint and liberally construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Kaiser 

Aluminum & Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th 

Cir. 1982). “Although we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply 

less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties 

represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably 

comply with the standards of [Federal] Rule [of Appellate Procedure] 28.” 

Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Although Appellant Edney’s brief is extremely difficult to follow, he 

appears to make several arguments, which we address in turn. We first 

address the district court’s dismissal of Edney’s claim for violations of his 

constitutional rights based on the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity. 

Edney alleges a number of civil rights claims including a violation of his First 

Amendment rights because “the officers never gave him a chance to speak”; 

a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when the officers “assaulted” 

him during his arrest, seized his firearm and detained him in the back of a 

police vehicle; a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights because the officers 

did not read his Miranda rights prior to detaining him; a violation of his Sixth 

Amendment rights when the officers “violated his constitutional law without 

assurance”; a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights when the officers 

were “crude” during their search of his person; and a violation of his rights 

when the officers committed “perjury” by submitting a frivolous affidavit of 

revocation to the Texas Department of Public Safety. 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/23/2020
No. 20-50327 

6 

Once qualified immunity has been properly raised, the burden is on 

the plaintiff to negate it. Collier v. Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 

2009). Edney failed to meet this burden. In his reply brief, Edney states only 

that the district court’s decision as to qualified immunity was “irrelevant and 

not applicable to the state of Texas Constitution.” Edney does not seek to 

show that the officers violated any of his clearly established constitutional 

rights or that the officers’ conduct was objectively unreasonable. See Wyatt 

v. Fletcher, 718 F.3d 496, 502–03 (5th Cir. 2013). Because Edney failed to 

raise any legal argument or identify any error in the district court judge’s legal 

analysis or application, his claim regarding violations of his constitutional 

rights is deemed “abandoned.” Davis v. Maggio, 706 F.2d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 

1983); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Edney next contends that the district court erred when it declined to 

exercise jurisdiction over his claims of slander against Appellees Hines and 

John Doe. We hold that the district court did not err in declining to exercise 

jurisdiction over these state law claims. 

Finally, Edney argues that the district court erred when it found that 

he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, dismissed his 

lawsuit with prejudice, and denied his motion of frivolous claims. A “motion 

of frivolous claims” is a method of recovery under Texas state law. See Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 105.002 (“A party to a civil suit in a court of 

this state brought by or against a state agency in which the agency asserts a 

cause of action against the party . . . is entitled to recover.”). The district 

court’s dismissal of Edney’s motion was therefore proper. 

* * * 

In view of the foregoing, Edney’s request for oral argument is 

DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-50327 Document: 00515614034 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/23/2020