Court Opinion

ID: 9395479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 00:00:25.665664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.798568
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50743        Document: 00516754022             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/17/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50743
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 17, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Tristan Michael Hyde,                                                              Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Tom S. Whitehead, Incorporated; Washington County,
   Texas; Washington County Sheriff’s Department; Otto
   H. Hanak, Sheriff; The State of Texas; KWHI,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:22-CV-252
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Hyde appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 action. We AFFIRM.
         On March 9, 2022, Tristan Michael Hyde, proceeding pro se and in
   forma pauperis, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As relevant to this
   appeal, Hyde primarily alleged that Defendants-Appellees violated his
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50743      Document: 00516754022          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50743

   constitutional rights by posting online mugshots and allegedly false
   statements indicating that he was a fugitive from justice. On May 9, 2022, the
   magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Hyde’s case. The district court
   adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation on July 28, 2022. Hyde, still
   proceeding pro se, raises five arguments on appeal. We liberally construe
   Hyde’s arguments, which we consider below. Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287,
   292 (5th Cir. 2021).
          First, Hyde argues that the district court erred by not allowing him to
   amend his original complaint. We review a denial of leave to amend for abuse
   of discretion. Nix v. Major League Baseball, 62 F.4th 920, 928 (5th Cir. 2023).
   Hyde did not file a formal motion to amend his complaint, but we will liberally
   construe his opposition to the magistrate judge’s report as such a motion. On
   appeal, he argues only that his “original complaint reflects a liberal filing”
   because the Walton County Sheriff’s Office (not a party to this appeal)
   denied his right to exercise an unspecified constitutional right to allow Hyde
   “to exercise another constitutional right at the time of his filing” of the
   original complaint. He does not explain how this relates to a denial of leave
   to amend nor how such a denial would constitute abuse of discretion by the
   district court. We thus decline to credit his unsubstantiated and forfeited
   argument. See United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365, 371 (5th Cir. 1992)
   (holding forfeiture for failure to provide “any analysis whatsoever”).
          Second, Hyde argues that his June 19, 2012 voluntary waiver of
   extradition should be deemed a request for final disposition pursuant to the
   Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). Briefly, Article III(a) of the
   IAD imposes a 180-day time limit on the jurisdiction lodging the initial
   detainer for bringing a prisoner to trial, see Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 45
   n.1 (1993); here, this jurisdiction is Lincoln County, New Mexico. This
   period begins after a “request for final disposition” is delivered to the court
   and the prosecuting officer of said jurisdiction. Id at 52. Hyde argues that his

                                              2
Case: 22-50743      Document: 00516754022           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/17/2023

                                     No. 22-50743

   waiver of extradition should be considered a “request for final disposition”
   that started the 180-day clock and that the Lincoln County authorities should
   have dismissed his charge of fraud. But no Lincoln County-associated entities
   are named in this suit. Accordingly, Hyde lacks standing to bring this claim
   because he cannot show “that the injury was likely caused by the defendant.”
   TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021) (citing Lujan v.
   Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).
          Third, Hyde argues that he was not a fugitive from justice from Dekalb
   County, Alabama following his March 2015 release from the Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice. Specifically, Hyde argues that when he was
   arrested in May 2015, he was notified of a detainer erroneously listing him as
   a fugitive from justice. This claim is time-barred. In construing the statute of
   limitations for § 1983 actions, federal courts use the forum state’s general
   personal injury statute of limitations. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249–50
   (1989). In Texas, the applicable limitations period is two years. Tex. Civ.
   Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a). A cause of action under § 1983 accrues
   when the aggrieved party knows, or has reason to know of, the injury or
   damages that form the basis of the action. Piotrowski v. City of Hous., 51 F.3d
   512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). Hyde knew of the notification of detainer in May
   2015, and his limitations period on this claim thus expired two years later in
   May 2017. His filing of the complaint in March 2022 places him well outside
   of the relevant statute of limitations.
          Fourth, Hyde challenges the constitutionality of Defendant-Appellee
   KWHI’s mugshot and article describing him as a fugitive from justice. To the
   extent this argument is separate from his § 1983 cause of action, such an
   argument was not made in the district court and is thus forfeited. See Rollins
   v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021). And to the extent this
   argument is part of his § 1983 cause of action, Hyde cannot succeed because
   he has not sufficiently established that KWHI, a radio station, is a state actor.

                                              3
Case: 22-50743      Document: 00516754022          Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50743

   “To state a cause of action under section 1983 the appellant must allege that
   the person who deprived him of a federal right was acting under color of law.”
   Priester v. Lowndes Cnty., 354 F.3d 414, 420 (5th Cir. 2004). Hyde has not
   sufficiently alleged that KWHI was acting under color of law. He provides
   only conclusory, unsubstantiated allegations of a KWHI-state conspiracy,
   which is insufficient to show non-state actor liability under § 1983. Id.
          Fifth, Hyde argues that § 552.028 of the Texas Government Code is
   unconstitutional and a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. These
   arguments are forfeited for failure to provide any reasoning or analysis.
   Green, 964 F.2d at 371.
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                              4