Court Opinion

ID: 9555931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:01:22.714581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:52.668765
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30399        Document: 00516858409             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/15/2023

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

                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                          August 15, 2023
                                      No. 22-30399                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   James McIntosh,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Robert Goings, former sergeant; Jonathan Stringer, Lieutenant;
   Jacob Waskom, Major; Louisiana State, through Louisiana
   Department of Public Safety and Corrections Rayburn Correctional Center;
   Mickey Dillon, Lieutenant,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:21-CV-1719
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         James McIntosh, Louisiana inmate # 582793, appeals the dismissal of
   his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force, in violation of the
   Eighth Amendment, against the defendants. The district court determined

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30399      Document: 00516858409          Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30399

   that McIntosh’s excessive force claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
   U.S. 477 (1994). McIntosh relatedly argues that the district court erred by
   admitting and relying on prison disciplinary reports that constituted hearsay
   in reaching its decision.     He further contends that the district court
   erroneously denied his motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation
   due to the defendants’ failure to preserve surveillance video of various parts
   of the use-of-force incidents and that the district court erred by dismissing
   his state-law tort claims without remand. McIntosh has abandoned his
   argument concerning remand of his state law claims by inadequately briefing
   it. See Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 2016).
          “[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
   conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
   unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff
   must prove that the conviction or sentence 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 a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87
   (footnote omitted). If a favorable finding under § 1983 would necessarily
   imply the invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence, “the complaint
   must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
   sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487. Heck applies to prison
   disciplinary convictions that result in the loss of good-time credits, and it is
   immaterial whether the plaintiff in fact seeks the restoration of good-time
   credits. Gray v. White, 18 F.4th 463, 467 (5th Cir. 2021).
          McIntosh contends that our precedents holding that Heck (1) applies
   to prison disciplinary convictions and (2) applies even where a prisoner does
   not expressly contest the loss of good-time credits or seek to recover lost
   good-time credits are in conflict with Heck and Muhammad v. Close, 540 US
   749 (2004), as well as our own prior Heck decisions. We have repeatedly

                                          2
Case: 22-30399      Document: 00516858409           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 22-30399

   rejected such arguments, including in appeals brought by McIntosh’s
   counsel. See Santos v. White, 18 F.4th 472, 476 (5th Cir. 2021); Aucoin v.
   Cupil, 958 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2020); Gray, 18 F.4th at 467; Autin v.
   Goings, No. 21-30678, 2023 WL 3004142 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2023); see also
   Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-49 (1997) (applying Heck to prisoner’s
   § 1983 claim challenging his prison disciplinary hearing). Furthermore,
   McIntosh does not challenge the district court’s fact-specific Heck analysis.
   See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
   Cir. 1987). He accordingly fails to show error in the conclusion that the
   defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of Heck.
   See McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012); FED. R. CIV.
   P. 56(a).
          McIntosh relatedly shows no error in the district court’s use of prison
   disciplinary reports to help determine whether his excessive force claims
   were Heck barred, as those reports were offered not to prove the truth of their
   contents but to show that prison officials had found him guilty of various
   disciplinary infractions. See Santos, 18 F.4th at 477; Gray, 18 F.4th at 470.
          Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
   McIntosh’s request for an adverse inference based on spoliation of the prison
   surveillance videos. See Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 2015).
   McIntosh fails to address the court’s relevant finding that an adverse
   inference would not alter the Heck calculus. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
          The judgment is AFFIRMED. Additionally, in light of our prior
   rejections of counsel’s arguments regarding Heck’s applicability and the
   admissibility of the prison disciplinary reports in indistinguishable
   circumstances, as well as counsel’s failure to address the district court’s fact-
   specific findings supporting its Heck ruling, counsel is CAUTIONED that
   sanctions may be imposed for bringing frivolous appeals. See United States v.

                                          3
Case: 22-30399     Document: 00516858409         Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                  No. 22-30399

   Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806,
   808 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                       4