Court Opinion

ID: 9901992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 20:00:30.284244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.762934
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50457         Document: 00516977020             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50457
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 22, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Adrian Gilliard,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Groesbeck Police Department; Chris Henson; John
   Blanco; Limestone District Attorneys Office;
   Kathleen Coffey,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 6:23-CV-36
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Adrian Gilliard has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
   in the instant appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure
   to state a claim. Gilliard’s IFP motion challenges the district court’s
   determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50457         Document: 00516977020              Page: 2       Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                          No. 23-50457

   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the
   appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal
   points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
           In support of his IFP motion, Gilliard has filed a rambling pro se brief
   that does little more than repeat some of the factual allegations he made in
   the district court regarding an incident that occurred on April 25, 2022. 1 He
   does not meaningfully address the district court’s stated reasons for
   dismissing his claims; arguably he has failed to adequately brief any issue. See
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987). However, even if we regard Gilliard’s repetition of relevant factual
   allegations as sufficient briefing, Gilliard fails to show that there is a
   nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
           In connection with his false arrest claim, Gilliard renews his
   contention that he did not make physical contact with his estranged wife in
   an incident that occurred in a church parking lot. However, his pleadings fail
   to “plausibly allege that [the defendants] did not have probable cause to
   arrest him.” Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 269 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
           Gilliard’s claim against John Blanco for the alleged loss of property
   revolves around the contention that, due to Blanco’s failure to investigate,
   Blanco did not understand that Gilliard’s vehicle was his separate property,
   despite the Texas community property regime. However, this claim sounds

           _____________________
           1
             To the extent that Gilliard’s pleadings raised claims based on events that occurred
   on any other date, he has abandoned such claims by failing to brief them. See Yohey
   v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

                                                2
Case: 23-50457      Document: 00516977020            Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                      No. 23-50457

   in negligence, and “the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a
   negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty,
   or property.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). To the extent
   that Gilliard asserts in his brief that Chris Henson played a role in the loss of
   his property by physically handing the keys to his wife, we note that Gilliard
   did not make such a factual allegation in his district court pleadings. This
   court “will not allow a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal
   merely because a party believes that he might prevail if given the opportunity
   to try a case again on a different theory.” Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
   183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).    As for his claim against the Groesbeck Police Department,
   Gilliard’s contention that city policy was violated when the police failed to
   impound his uninsured vehicle and instead allowed his wife to drive it fails to
   demonstrate that the city’s policy or custom was the “moving force” of the
   alleged constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of
   N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
          As the district court determined, Kathleen Coffey is entitled to
   absolute immunity for actions performed within the scope of her
   prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976).
   Gilliard makes no cogent argument that Coffey’s actions in his case are not
   entitled to immunity. Finally, Gilliard fails entirely to reprise any factual
   allegations regarding the Limestone District Attorney’s Office (LDAO), nor
   does he address the district court’s determination that the LDAO is not a
   separate legal entity that can be sued. See Edmiston v. Louisiana Small Bus.
   Dev. Ctr., 931 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Cir. 2019). He has therefore abandoned the
   claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (1993).
          In view of the foregoing, Gilliard fails to show that his appeal will
   involve a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his

                                           3
Case: 23-50457    Document: 00516977020         Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                 No. 23-50457

   IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                      4