Court Opinion

ID: 9889870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:00:28.132622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:34.043931
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40113         Document: 00516927029             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                      October 11, 2023
                                       No. 23-40113
                                     Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   Cesar Santelises,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Governor of State of Texas,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CV-97
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Cesar Santelises, Texas prisoner # 01923094, appeals the district
   court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28
   U.S.C. § 1915A, of his civil action challenging the constitutionality of Texas
   Penal Code § 22.02. He has also filed a motion for judicial notice reiterating
   his briefed arguments.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40113      Document: 00516927029           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                     No. 23-40113

          Even where a prisoner is not proceeding in forma pauperis, his civil
   complaint seeking redress from a governmental entity or its officer or
   employee must be dismissed during screening if it is frivolous, malicious, or
   fails to state a claim. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1); see Shakouri v. Davis, 923 F.3d 407,
   410 (5th Cir. 2019). We review de novo a dismissal by a district court as
   either frivolous or for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1). See
   Shakouri, 923 F.3d at 411; Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).
          In 2014, Santelises was sentenced to 50 years in prison following his
   guilty plea conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon causing
   serious bodily injury in a family or dating relationship, in violation of § 22.02.
   As in the district court, Santelises argues that two different subsections of
   § 22.02 impose two different punishments for exactly the same offense and,
   therefore, his statute of conviction violates his constitutional rights under the
   Equal Protection Clause and the Ex Post Facto Clause. He specifically
   asserts that under § 22.02(a)(1)(b), an aggravated assault causing serious
   bodily injury to another, including a spouse, was classified as a second-degree
   felony; however, he complains that § 22.02(b)(1) improperly enhanced the
   offense to a first-degree felony if a deadly weapon is used. According to
   Santelises, the two sections imposed different punishments for the same
   crime because causing serious bodily injury necessarily implies the use of a
   deadly weapon, and a spouse is considered a family member.
          Santelises misinterprets the statute. There is no § 22.02(a)(1)(b),
   and, according to the plain language of the statute, aggravated assault occurs
   when a person commits an assault and causes serious bodily injury to another,
   including one’s spouse, or when one uses or displays a deadly weapon while
   committing an assault. § 22.02(a)(1), (2). Despite Santelises’s assertion, the
   statute expressly contemplates that one can cause serious bodily injury

                                           2
Case: 23-40113         Document: 00516927029               Page: 3       Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                           No. 23-40113

   without using a deadly weapon.1 Section 22.02(b)(1) provides that an aggra-
   vated assault, including an offense against a spouse, is a second-degree fel-
   ony, except in specific circumstances. As relevant here, an aggravated assault
   becomes a first-degree felony when one both uses a deadly weapon and causes
   serious bodily injury to a person in a familial relationship, including a spouse.
   § 22.02(b)(1). Santelises’s claims are rooted in a faulty interpretation of the
   statute, lack an arguable basis in law, and fail to state a claim. See Ashcroft v.
   Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.
   1999).

           Moreover, because he has failed to adequately brief the issue, San-
   telises has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that he
   failed to raise a viable ex post facto claim. See Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det.
   Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2017); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
   25 (5th Cir. 1993). And there is no merit to Santelises’s argument, raised for
   the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in not certifying his ques-
   tion about the constitutionality of § 22.02 to the Attorney General of Texas,
   pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). Even if it is assumed that this new conten-
   tion is properly before this court, § 2403(b) is not applicable here because the
   statute applies to federal suits that question the constitutionality of a state
   statute but do not name the state or its agency, officer, or employee as a party.

           Additionally, in dismissing Santelises’s complaint, the district court
   also concluded that his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
   477, 486-87 (1994). Santelises’s argument that Heck is distinguishable

           _____________________
           1
              It is clear that someone could use their physical body force and injure or even kill
   another person with only that force (e.g., throwing the victim down on the concrete where
   they hit their head). On the other side, someone could use a deadly weapon and not
   seriously injure the victim, such as shooting at but missing the victim.

                                                 3
Case: 23-40113      Document: 00516927029           Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                     No. 23-40113

   because Heck was seeking damages and he (Santelises) was merely asking the
   district court to resolve a question with regard to his statute of conviction is
   without merit. Courts have expanded Heck to bar declaratory and injunctive
   relief, in addition to money damages. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
   74, 81-82 (2005); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91 (5th Cir. 1998) (en
   banc). Also, Santelises’s prayer for relief suggests that he is seeking a
   reduction in his sentence. Accordingly, a successful outcome to his challenge
   to the constitutionality of Texas’s aggravated assault statute would imply the
   invalidity of his conviction or sentence for aggravated assault, and his
   challenge is barred by Heck. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

          Finally, since Santelises had previously filed an unsuccessful 28
   U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 2014 conviction, the district court
   declined to construe his filing as an unauthorized successive application. In
   his brief, Santelises alternatively requests authorization to file a successive
   § 2254 application raising his instant claims. This court may authorize the
   filing of a successive § 2254 application only if the applicant makes a prima
   facie showing that his claims satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
   § 2244(b)(3)(C); In re Davis, 121 F.3d 952, 953 (5th Cir. 1997). With respect
   to new claims, § 2244(b)(2) requires that the prisoner demonstrate that
   either: (1) his claims rely on a new rule of constitutional law that was made
   retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court that was
   previously unavailable; or (2) the factual predicate for the claims could
   not have been discovered previously through due diligence, and the
   underlying facts, if proven, would establish by clear and convincing evidence
   that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable trier of fact would have found
   the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. § 2244(b)(2). To the extent
   that Santelises seeks authorization to file a successive § 2254 application, he
   has not made the required showing.

                                          4
Case: 23-40113    Document: 00516927029         Page: 5   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                 No. 23-40113

         In light of the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal order is
   AFFIRMED and Santelises’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

                                      5