Court Opinion

ID: 9393735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 00:00:37.078666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:54.871277
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30031        Document: 00516746273             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/10/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                              FILED
                                                                           May 10, 2023
                                       No. 22-30031                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                              Clerk

   Taylor Carlisle, individually and as Representative Member of a Class;
   Emile Heron, individually and as Representative Member of a Class,

                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Joe McNair, also known as Joseph Thomas McNair; Newell
   Normand; McNair & McNair, L.L.C.; Philadelphia
   Indemnity Insurance Company,

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees,

   Sheriff Joseph P. Lopinto, III,

                                                                                     Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:16-CV-3767
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30031         Document: 00516746273               Page: 2       Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                           No. 22-30031

           Taylor Carlisle and Emile Heron, two former participants in Jefferson
   Parish’s Drug Court, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
   They alleged members of the Drug Court, acting in their official and
   individual capacities, violated their constitutional rights to due process by
   jailing them for technical program violations and for giving them “flat time”
   sentences that did not allow credit for good behavior. Appellants also brought
   state law negligence claims against a court-contracted counselor. The district
   court dismissed claims against most Drug Court staff members, and this
   court affirmed those dismissals on two occasions.1 This court also affirmed a
   district court’s denial of Carlisle’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 2
   Carlisle and Heron now appeal following the district court’s final orders
   dismissing claims against the local sheriff and a court-contracted counselor.
   We find five issues briefed on appeal.3

           _____________________
           1
             See generally Carlisle v. Mussal, 774 F. App’x 905 (5th Cir. 2019) (unpublished)
   (per curiam); Carlisle v. Klees, 786 F. App’x 493 (5th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (per curiam).
           2
            Carlisle v. Lopinto, No. 20-30720, 2022 WL 1778548, at *1–2 (5th Cir. June 1,
   2022) (unpublished) (per curiam). In 2018, this court reversed the district court’s
   conclusion that Carlisle’s habeas petition was moot. Carlisle v. Normand, 745 F. App’x 223,
   224 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (per curiam).
           3
             Appellants’ briefing does not clearly convey their arguments. Appellants listed
   eighteen issues but failed to adequately brief most of those positions with legal arguments
   and citations to the record. Failure to adequately brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver.
   See Roy v. City of Monroe, 950 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2020). And an appellant’s contentions
   must provide “citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
   relies,” as well as “a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.” FED. R. APP. P.
   28(a)(8), (9).

                                                      2
Case: 22-30031           Document: 00516746273              Page: 3       Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                            No. 22-30031

           This court reviews the grant of a motion to dismiss and a motion for
   summary judgment de novo.4 We review a district court’s denial of a motion
   to amend for abuse of discretion.5
           First, Appellants argue that the district court erred in rejecting their
   overdetention claim against Sheriff Joseph Lopinto. But the district court
   found, and Appellants do not contest, that authorities detained them at all
   times pursuant to court orders. Appellants’ claim therefore attacks the drug
   court’s sentence and is barred by Heck v. Humphry, which requires a § 1983
   plaintiff whose claims would necessarily “render a conviction or sentence
   invalid” to prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal
   or collateral attack.6 Appellants can make no such showing here, so their
   overdetention claim may not proceed under § 1983.
           Second, Carlisle contests the district court’s dismissal of his state tort
   claim against Joseph McNair, a court-contracted counselor who evaluated
   Drug Court participants. McNair assessed Carlisle only once, in January
   2013. The district court determined that McNair did not have a therapist–
   patient relationship with Carlisle and that McNair’s activity did not cause
   Carlisle’s alleged harm given that the ultimate decision-making power
   “rested with the judges administering the program.” Appellants do not argue
   on appeal that McNair owed any duty to them, obliquely challenging only the
   district court’s power to dismiss insufficient claims under Federal Rule of

           _____________________
           4
               Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation
   omitted).
           5
            Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th
   Cir. 2014).
           6
               512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).

                                                       3
Case: 22-30031        Document: 00516746273               Page: 4      Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30031

   Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).7 Carlisle therefore fails to show that the district
   court erred in dismissing his state law tort claim on the merits.
           Third, Carlisle contests the district court’s determination that any
   state law claims against McNair arising prior to April 27, 2015, were
   prescribed.8 The district court determined that the drug court imposed all
   sanctions before that date, and Carlisle was therefore aware of facts that
   would put a reasonable person on notice that McNair committed any of the
   alleged wrongs against him. On appeal, Carlisle cites mainly federal case law
   discussing tolling in employment claims under the continuing violation
   doctrine. This argument is inapposite, and Carlisle points to no facts alleging
   that McNair continued to cause him harm after April 27, 2015. Carlisle’s
   argument does not show that the district court erred in finding claims arising
   before that date prescribed.
           Fourth, Appellants argue that McNair acted with deliberate
   indifference to the conditions of Appellants’ confinement. The district court
   concluded that McNair was entitled to qualified immunity, dismissing “all §
   1983 claims for damages against McNair” with prejudice. Appellants do not
   challenge the district court’s determination that McNair retained qualified
   immunity, which bars relief on the deliberate indifference claim. Appellants
   also point to no facts indicating that McNair knew of and disregarded an

           _____________________
           7
              See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss,
   a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
   relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (citation omitted).
           8
             Appellants filed their complaint on April 27, 2016, see Complaint, Carlisle v.
   Normand, 2:16-CV-3767 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2016) (Dkt. No. 1), and the statute of limitations
   is one year.

                                                    4
Case: 22-30031          Document: 00516746273                Page: 5       Date Filed: 05/10/2023

                                            No. 22-30031

   excessive risk to Appellants’ health or safety.9 Appellants demonstrate no
   error in the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to McNair.
          Fifth, Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motion
   to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. A “district court properly exercises its
   discretion under Rule 15(a)(2) when it denies leave to amend for a substantial
   reason, such as undue delay, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, undue
   prejudice, or futility.”10 The district court reasoned that Appellants were
   “simply shifting their claims in response to the Court’s rulings, and that the
   Sheriff would be unduly prejudiced at this stage of litigation if Plaintiffs were
   allowed to significantly amend the claims against him, particularly given the
   status of his pending Motion for Summary Judgment.” Appellants argue that
   they had good cause to amend and that the district court lacked a substantial
   reason to deny the motion but provide no reasons specific to their case. We
   are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave
   to file a sixty-page amended complaint in these circumstances.
          Appellants fail to show district court error in any orders rejecting
   claims brought against individuals conducting work related to the Drug
   Court. We AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          9
              See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 US 825, 837 (1994).
          10
               U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2014).

                                                       5