Court Opinion

ID: 9908189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 01:00:36.700786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:58.535430
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50361       Document: 00516994314           Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

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

                                   ____________                              FILED
                                                                      December 7, 2023
                                     No. 23-50361                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________                              Clerk

   Omar Jose Calzada,

                                                                Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

   Patton Zarate, Individually and official capacity as Pro-Tem Bexar
   County Prosecutor; Mitchell Yager, Individually and official capacity as
   Bexar County Public Defender; Mary Angie Garcia, Individually and
   official capacity as Bexar County District Clerk; Angelina
   Martindelcampo, Individually and official capacity as Bexar County
   Criminal Magistrate Court Coordinator; Lucy Adame-Clark,
   Individually and official capacity as Bexar County Clerk; Brandon
   Roberts, Individually and official capacity as Chief Deputy of Guadalupe
   County Constables,

                                             Defendants—Appellees.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:22-CV-1308
                    _____________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, Stewart, Circuit Judge, and Hanks,
   District Judge.*
          _____________________
          *
             United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
Case: 23-50361          Document: 00516994314             Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                          No. 23-50361

   Per Curiam: **
          Pro se Appellant Omar Jose Calzada appeals the district court’s
   dismissal of his § 1983 claims that the Bexar County court clerks, constable,
   prosecutor, and public defender violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
   Amendment rights during his misdemeanor harassment case filed in Bexar
   County Criminal Court. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
                                                I.
          Calzada pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture over 100
   marijuana plants on August 21, 2014. The district court sentenced him to
   time served and placed him on a four-year term of supervised release. In June
   2021, he filed a writ of coram nobis, arguing that his conviction was invalid due
   to the admission of a procedurally invalid search warrant and affidavit in his
   case. Calzada asserted that a Bexar County clerk fabricated certain
   documents and denied him due process and a fair trial. The district court
   denied his coram nobis petition on the grounds that he failed to show coherent
   reasons to justify his delay in seeking relief and because the search warrant
   and affidavit were properly authenticated.
          In the process of investigating the facts underlying his writ, Calzada
   allegedly harassed a county attorney responsible for processing open records
   requests. Consequently, in September 2020, a Bexar County prosecutor filed
   a criminal complaint for misdemeanor harassment against Calzada for
   threatening a county clerk employee. In early 2021, Calzada’s appointed
   counsel filed a motion for a competency evaluation. Around the same time,
   the county court judge presiding over Calzada’s case recused herself, and a
   state administrative judge assigned a senior state district court judge to
   preside over all matters in Calzada’s case. A county magistrate judge issued
          _____________________
          **
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 23-50361      Document: 00516994314            Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                      No. 23-50361

   an order for a competency evaluation on February 23, 2021. Calzada refused
   to comply with the order. The magistrate judge then ordered the county
   court clerk to issue a capias warrant for Calzada’s arrest for his
   noncompliance. A deputy county constable then arrested Calzada.
          In December 2022, Calzada filed the instant § 1983 action and named
   several state criminal court clerks, the county constable, the public defender,
   and prosecutor. Calzada asserted in his complaint that the county court
   clerks violated his due process rights by delaying his case and committing
   fraud to prevent him from receiving a speedy trial. He also argued that some
   of the clerks also violated his Fourth Amendment rights by issuing an invalid
   capias warrant at the instruction of a judge lacking jurisdiction over his case.
   He further contended that his public defender violated his right to effective
   counsel and that all defendants conspired against him and engaged in
   malicious prosecution.
          In January 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss Calzada’s claims.
   On April 13, 2023, the district court dismissed all of Calzada’s claims on the
   grounds that the defendants either played no role in the alleged injurious
   action, took no unlawful actions, were not state actors, or because they
   properly acted within the bounds of quasi-judicial immunity as court
   employees undertaking an official act by order of a judge.
                                           II.
          On appeal, Calzada argues that the federal district court abused its
   discretion in denying his motions for recusal. He further argues that the
   district court’s dismissal of his claims against the state court employees and
   the county prosecutor was legally incorrect and based on falsified facts. His
   remaining assignments of error stem from the federal district court’s denial
   of his multiple motions for reconsideration, to alter the judgment, and
   alleging fabrication of the facts in its dismissal order.

                                           3
Case: 23-50361       Document: 00516994314             Page: 4      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                        No. 23-50361

           Calzada’s arguments are unavailing. The district court appropriately
   determined that Calzada failed to state a claim for which relief could be
   granted as to any of the defendants in this case. First, the claims against his
   public defender were appropriately dismissed because appointed counsel is
   not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability. Mills v. Crim. Dist. Court No.
   3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[E]ven court-appointed attorneys, are
   not official state actors, and generally are not subject to suit under section
   1983.”). Second, the district court correctly dismissed Calzada’s claims
   against the county court employees because the capias warrant was lawfully
   issued1 and “court clerks have absolute immunity from actions for damages
   arising from acts they are specifically required to do under court order or at a
   judge’s discretion.” Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679, 682 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal
   quotation marks omitted). Third, Calzada’s claim against the constable was
   properly dismissed because the constable acted pursuant to a lawfully issued
   capias warrant. Fourth, state court prosecutors are shielded by absolute
   immunity while “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case”
   if the conduct is “associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
   Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991). Lastly, the record supports the
   district court’s dismissal of Calzada’s conspiracy claim because he “suffered
   no violation of his Constitutional rights.”
           The district court’s dismissal of Calzada’s claims is AFFIRMED.
   All pending motions are DENIED.

           _____________________
           1
            The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows county court clerks to issue capias
   warrants. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 23.031, 23.04.

                                              4