P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10969 Su m m ar y Cal endar

RAYMO ND D NEW S OM E Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. DAVI D L RI CHA RD S , At t o r n e y At L a w; BA RRYJ A L F OR D, A t t o r n e yA tL a w; R E XB A R N E T T , A t t orney A tL aw ; B E N D L E O N A R D , T arran tC ou n t y D i st ri ct A t t orney; D E W AY N E H O U S T O N , T arran tC ou n t y D i st rict A t t orney’ s O f f i ce; TIM C U R R Y , Tarr antC ount y D i st r i c tA t t or ney; JU A N I TAPAV LIC K , C r i m i nal Di s t r i c tCo u r tNo 1 CHI EF OF POL I CE OFT HE GRAPE VI NE POL I CE D EP AR TM E N T AS O F M AR CH 2 0 20 04 ; D ET EC TI VE O SCA R R AM I RE Z; SCO TT E AV ES, G r ap e vi ne Po l i c e D e pa r t m e nt 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 N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 353

B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R aym on d D

. N ew som e, T exas pri soner # 129 162 6, app eal s t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alof

hi s i n fo r m a pa upe r i s ( I FP) civilr i ght s c o m pl ai nta s f r ivo l o us United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10969

2 a n dforfailu re to sta te a cla im u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C

. § § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )(B ) an d1 9 1 5 A (b )(1). N e w s o m e s ue d t he de fe nda nt s f o rt he i ra c t i o ns (o ri nac t i o n) b e f o r e , dur i ng, a nd af t er hi s s econdst ate t ri al , convi ct i on , an d 20 year- sentence f or aggrava t ed
r o b b e r yw ith ad e a d lyw e a p o n . W e re v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l. G eiger v. Jow ers , 4 0 4 F .3d 3 7 1 , 3 7 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). N ew som e a sse rts tha t th e r e is n o im m u n i ty for the po l i ce d ep a rtm en t. H o w e ve r , t he c o ur td i sm i ssed t he c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he po l i c e c hi e f a nd the det ec t ives as bar r ed by Heck v. Hu mph rey , 5 12 U

. S. 4 77 ( 19 94 ) , a nd, al t erna t ivel y, as barred by the st atuteo f li m i t ati on s. B ecau se N ew som e does not
c hal l enge t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat hi s c l ai m s w er e b ar r ed by Heck , h e h a s a b a n d o n e dth a tis s u e . S ee Yoheyv . Col l i ns , 98 5 F

. 2 d22 2 , 22 4 -25 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 813 F. 2d 744, 748 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). N e w s o m e as s e r t s t hathe di d no tkno w a bo utt he § 1 98 3 c l ai m s unt i la bo ut t w o years ago an d that t h e di st ri ctcourtsai d that th ere w as no stat u t e of l i m i t at i o ns f

o r§ 1 98 3 s ui t s . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d c o r r e c t l y t hat t he r e i s no fede r als t at ut e o f

l i m i t at i on s a n d t hatt he Texas ’ s t w o- yearge ner alper so nal inju r ylim ita tio n s p e r io da p p lie d

. S ee Mo o rev. McD o n a ld , 3 0 F

. 3 d6 1 6 , 6 2 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). N e w s o m e ’ s a s s e r tio n th a t h e d idn o t k n o w a b o u t h is § 1 9 8 3 cla im s
u n til a b o u t t w o y e a r s a g o d o e s n o t s h o w th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din determ i n i n g t h at N ew som e’ s com pl ai n t w as u n t i m el y. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot
e r rb yd is m is s in gth e s e cla im s a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Moore , 30 F. 3d at620. N ew som e asser t s th at th e (uns pe c if i e d) a t t o r ne y i n t h i s s u i tw as app oi n t ed by th e st ate court. “ [ P ] rivate at t orneys, even court

- ap poi n t ed att orneys, are not
o ffic ia l s ta te a c to r s , a n dg e n e r a llya r e n o t s u bje c t t o s u it u n d e rs e c tio n 1 9 8 3 .” Mills v . C r im in a l D is t. Co u r t No . 3 , 8 37 F. 2d6 77 , 6 79 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 8)

. The di st r i c tc our tdi d noter ri n di sm i ss i ng t he § 1983 c l ai m s agai nsthi s at t or neys a s la c k in ga n a r g u a b le b a s is inla w a n dfa ilin gto s ta te acla im

. S ee G eiger , 404 F. 3d at373.N o. 08- 10969

3 N ew som e al so asser t s t h at al lof t h e defen da n t s w ere w orki n g u n der col or of state l a w an dsh ou l dn ot be i m m u n e from s u it f or th eir m i scon d u ct. N e w s o m e ’ s co n c lu s io n a l a s s e r tio n fa ils to s h o w t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din fi n d i n g th a t th e j u d ge an dthe pr ose cu tors w ere ab solu tel y im m u n e fro m su i t. B e c a u s e th e s e d e fe n d a n ts w e r e a b s o lu te lyim m u n e f r o m s u it, N e w s o m e ’ s cla im s aga i n stt h em l acked an argu able basi s i nlaw a n d t h e d i st ri ctcou rtd i d n oterr in d is m is s in gth e cla im s a g a in s t t h e m a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Krueg erv. R ei m er , 66 F .3d 7 5 , 7 6 -7 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). N ew som e asser t s that “t h e stand ard f or revi ew b y t h e 5 t h C ri

. [ si c] R u l es
s h o u ldb e lo o k [e d ] a t u n d e rs ta te la w .” E v e n lib e r a llyco n s tr u in gth e b r ie f, see Haines v. K

erner , 404 U

. S

. 519 , 520 ( 197 2) , w e cann otdivi n e an argu m en tf rom t hi s a s s e r t i o n. T h e a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n dis th u s fr iv o lo u s . S ee How ard
v . Ki ng , 7 07 F

. 2d215 , 219

- 20 (5t h C i r. 198 3)

. B ecau se th e app eali s f rivol ou s, it is d is m is s e d

. S ee 5 T H C IR
. R . 4 2 .2 . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t s d is m is s a l o f N e w s o m e ’s
com pl ai n tan d thi s c ou rt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s app ealboth coun tas st rikes f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387- 88 (5t h C i r. 1 996 )

. N ew som e is cau t i on ed t h at i f h e a ccum u l ates t h ree s t rikes und er§ 1915( g) , he w i l lnotbe abl e t o pr oc ee d I FP i n any c ivi lac t i on o rappeal f i l ed w h i l e h e is i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e “i s un der im m in e n t d a n g e r o f se rio u s p h y sica l i nju ry .” § 1 9 1 5 (g). AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED

.