Court Opinion

ID: 9906603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 19:00:33.71287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:15.601549
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10767         Document: 00516987644             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/04/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10767
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               December 4, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Randal Lee Thompson,                                                                Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   City of Weatherford Municipality; Stacy White;
   Christopher Bumpas; City of Weatherford Police
   Department; Municipal Court in the City of
   Weatherford,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:23-CV-201
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Randal Lee Thompson appeals
   the district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of his complaint as frivolous and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10767      Document: 00516987644          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                    No. 23-10767

   for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–⁠(ii). For the
   following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.
                 I. Factual and Procedural History
           Thompson alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when
   Officer Christopher Bumpas illegally pulled his car over, ticketed and
   arrested him, and then conspired with Prosecutor Stacy White, the City of
   Weatherford (“City”), the Weatherford Police Department (“WPD”), and
   the Weatherford Municipal Court to “cover up” “policing for profits”
   within the City and the WPD. On February 27, 2023, a magistrate judge
   granted Thompson in forma pauperis status and the right to proceed with his
   case.
           The magistrate judge determined that Thompson’s complaint, as
   originally filed, was insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
   because it did not include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
   that [he was] entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To assist with the
   preliminary screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the magistrate judge
   ordered Thompson to complete a questionnaire in order to further develop
   his factual allegations. After missing both the court’s March 30, 2023
   deadline and its April 17, 2023 extended deadline, Thompson filed his
   response to the questionnaire on May 15, 2023. Without first seeking leave
   to file, Thompson also filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2023. Having
   reviewed the complaint and questionnaire response, the magistrate judge
   prepared a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Thompson’s
   federal claims be dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous and for failure
   to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
           The magistrate judge held that neither the complaint—as originally
   filed or amended—nor the questionnaire response alleged sufficient facts to
   implicate the City, the WPD, the municipal court, Officer Bumpas, or

                                         2
Case: 23-10767      Document: 00516987644           Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                     No. 23-10767

   Prosecutor White. Both the complaint and the questionnaire response—
   without providing facts supporting the alleged causes of action—cursorily
   raised due process violations and superficially referenced claims of
   conspiracy, evidence tampering, and perjury. The magistrate judge reasoned
   that Thompson’s complaint and questionnaire response lacked “an arguable
   basis . . . in fact” such that his allegations failed to state legally cognizable
   claims. See Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
          Moreover, the magistrate judge held that Prosecutor White was
   entitled to absolute immunity from suit because Thompson presented a claim
   entirely related to her prosecutorial role and actions in initiating and carrying
   his case through the judicial process. Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284–85 (5th
   Cir. 1994). Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that the Heck
   doctrine prevented Thompson from pursuing a civil action, which directly
   attacked the validity of his prior criminal trial, without first showing a
   favorable termination of the underlying proceeding. Heck v. Humphrey, 512
   U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (holding that a “plaintiff must prove that [his prior
   criminal conviction] has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
   executive order, declared invalid by [a] state tribunal authorized to make such
   determination, or called into question by [a] federal court’s issuance of writ
   of habeas corpus”); see also Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.
   2000) (holding that the plaintiff was “barred from any recovery and fail[ed]
   to state a claim upon which relief [could] be granted” because he “[had] not
   satisfied the favorable termination requirement of Heck”). Lastly, the
   magistrate judge recommended denying Thompson leave to file an amended
   complaint because allowing him another opportunity to revise his pleadings
   would be an inefficient use of judicial resources, would cause unnecessary
   delay, and would be futile.
          The district court reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s
   recommendation, dismissing Thompson’s suit with prejudice as frivolous

                                          3
Case: 23-10767      Document: 00516987644           Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                     No. 23-10767

   and for failure to state a claim under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
   §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–⁠(ii). Thompson timely filed a notice of appeal.
                          II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          We review claims dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
   1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292
   (5th Cir. 2021). A district court may dismiss as frivolous the complaint of a
   prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis if it lacks “an arguable basis in law or
   fact.” Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2007). We review
   claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo,
   Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d 483, 484 (5th Cir. 2007), applying the same standard
   used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
   Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2017). A
   complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) when it lacks
   sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
   plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
          While we construe pro se briefs liberally, “conclusory allegations or
   legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to state
   a claim for relief.” Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th
   Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court
   may dismiss an action with prejudice if the court finds that the plaintiff has
   alleged his best case. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999).
                                III. DISCUSSION
          Having considered Thompson’s arguments and reviewed the record,
   we see no error in the district court’s dismissal of his claims as frivolous and
   for failure to state a claim. Because Thompson’s constitutional claims were
   frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute, the district court did not err in
   dismissing his claims with prejudice. See Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504, 1506
   (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Accepting Thompson’s allegations as true and

                                          4
Case: 23-10767      Document: 00516987644           Page: 5    Date Filed: 12/04/2023

                                     No. 23-10767

   viewing them in the light most favorable to his case, he fails to state an
   actionable claim for relief. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,
   205 (5th Cir. 2007). Thompson had a fair opportunity to present his best case
   and did not allege facts that would, if proven true, warrant the relief he seeks.
                                IV. Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment
   dismissing Thompson’s suit with prejudice.

                                          5