Court Opinion

ID: 9915929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 01:00:38.472555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:04.546730
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10311        Document: 00517025244             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/08/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10311
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                January 8, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Lonnie Kade Welsh,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Lamb County, Texas

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant,

                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:20-CV-077
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Lonnie Kade Welsh appeals the district court’s January 24, 2022, final
   order dismissing Welsh’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as well as the
   district court’s order on January 28, 2022, denying Welsh’s motion to amend
   judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10311          Document: 00517025244           Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                         No. 22-10311

          Welsh’s claims relate to an incident that occurred at the Texas Civil
   Commitment Center (“TCCC”) where Welsh was civilly committed under
   Texas Health and Safety Code § 841.001 as a sexually violent predator. On
   or around November 13, 2017, Welsh was being transferred to a medical
   appointment when he became combative (the “November 2017 incident” or
   the “incident”). Welsh was returned to TCCC and ultimately presented
   himself to the nurse with a swollen eye, scrapes, and several additional
   injuries. Welsh reported the incident to the police, claiming that TCCC staff
   “slammed” his face into the floor causing injuries. After investigation, the
   Lamb County Police Department concluded that Welsh had not been
   assaulted.
          Instead, on November 28, 2017, the police arrested and charged
   Welsh under Texas Penal Code § 37.09 for tampering or fabricating physical
   evidence on the basis that Welsh harmed himself and falsely reported TCCC
   staff as the culprit. At trial, Welsh “admitted . . . he had a ʻplan’ to cause the
   employees to use force against him’ so that he could sue the employees ʻto
   get paid’ and to show that what the employees are doing at this facility ʻis
   actual punishment and not treatment.’” 1 He was convicted in May 2018 and
   received an 11-year sentence. 2 In 2019, however, the Texas Court of Appeals
   reversed Welsh’s conviction. 3
          On March 20, 2022, Welsh ﬁled the current lawsuit against Lamb
   County, Scott Say, Ricki Redman, Ross Hester, and the City of Littleﬁeld
   claiming that the investigation and prosecution of the November 2017
   incident violated his constitutional rights. Welsh’s case was transferred to a

          _____________________
          1
              Welsh v. State, 570 S.W.3d 963, 965 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, pet. denied)
          2
              See generally id.
          3
              Id.

                                               2
Case: 22-10311           Document: 00517025244           Page: 3       Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                          No. 22-10311

   magistrate judge for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 4 To better
   understand Welsh’s allegations, the magistrate judge ordered Welsh to
   complete a Questionnaire and Declaration and further ordered defendants to
   develop a so-called Martinez report, comprised of authenticated records
   pertaining to the speciﬁc allegations made in the complaint. On December
   16, 2020, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Welsh’s complaint. 5
   The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s ﬁndings and
   recommendations over Welsh’s objections and later denied Welsh’s motion
   to amend its judgment.
                                                    I.
           Since 2019, Welsh has ﬁled multiple lawsuits relating to the 2017
   incident in state court and at least 11 cases in the Northern District of Texas. 6
   As a result of his multiple filings, a Texas Court of Appeals has deemed
   Welsh a vexatious litigant. 7 The Northern District of Texas has previously
           _____________________
           4
               See infra n.5.
           5
              The magistrate judge noted that Welsh was not subject to the screening
   provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because he was confined pursuant to an order of civil
   commitment and was thus not considered a “prisoner” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(h). However, because Welsh proceeded in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge
   determined he was subject to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
   magistrate’s report and recommendations stated that Welsh’s complaint was screened
   pursuant to § 1915(e) but recommended dismissal under § 1915A. Because the magistrate
   specifically recognized that Welsh’s complaint was subject to screening under § 1915(e),
   and not § 1915A, the Court understands this to have been a typographical error. The district
   court may correct this error on remand.
           6
              Welsh’s filings in the Northern District of Texas include cases numbered:
   (1) 5:17-cv-173 (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice); (2) 5:18-cv-20; (3) 5:19-cv-255;
   (4) 5:20-cv-24; (5) 5:20-cv-77 (the present case); (6) 5:21-cv-156; (7) 5:22-cv-98; (8) 22-
   cv-183; (9) 5:22-cv-237; (10) 5:22-cv-237; and (11) 5:23-cv-28. See also case number 5-23-
   CV-890-RP, filed in the Western District of Texas.
           7
          See In re Welsh, No. 09-23-00027-CV, 2023 WL 2175768, at *1 (Tex. App.—
   Beaumont 2023, no pet.).

                                                3
Case: 22-10311           Document: 00517025244               Page: 4       Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                             No. 22-10311

   warned Welsh that he would face sanctions for further frivolous filings, as has
   this Court. 8 The Supreme Court of the United States recently found that
   Welsh “has repeatedly abused this Court’s process.” 9
           Across his complaints, Welsh raises similar claims and frequently
   names the same defendants. Relevant here, Northern District of Texas case
   number 18-cv-20 and the present case were both brought in the Northern
   District of Texas; both name Lamb County, Scott Say, Ricki Redman, Ross
   Hester, and the City of Littleﬁeld as defendants; and, in both cases, Welsh
   asserts that his constitutional rights were violated during the investigation
   and prosecution stemming from the November 2017 incident. The multitude
   of Welsh’s ﬁlings and parallel issues raised make remand appropriate to
   consider whether Welsh’s current claims are barred by res judicata and the
   successive claim doctrine. 10 Accordingly, this Court REMANDS this case
   for the district court to address this question in the ﬁrst instance.
                                                  II.
           “To assist district courts in discerning whether in forma pauperis
   prisoner complaints may proceed, the Fifth Circuit has adopted a procedure
           _____________________
           8
               Welsh v. McLane, No. 20-10412, 2021 WL 5313626 (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021).
           9
               Welsh v. Collier, 143 S. Ct. 1046, reconsideration denied, 143 S. Ct. 2454 (2023).
           10
              See Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Dismissal by the court
   sua sponte on res judicata grounds, however, is permissible in the interest of judicial
   economy where both actions were brought before the same court.”); Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d
   438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990) (“However, we conclude that in an action proceeding under
   section 1915(d), we may consider, sua sponte, affirmative defenses that are apparent from
   the record even where they have not been addressed or raised in the district court . . . . a
   court of appeals should have latitude in the absence of the defendant, as does the district
   court, to effect the salutary principles of section 1915(d) by ending the litigation where the
   plaintiff has no basis on which to succeed.”); see also Omran v. Wyche, 745 F. App’x 225
   (5th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of 18 U.S.C. § 1983 suit subject to the screening
   provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after district court sua sponte considered res judicata
   effect of prior suit).

                                                   4
Case: 22-10311            Document: 00517025244                 Page: 5    Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                              No. 22-10311

   from the Tenth Circuit that allows the district court to obtain a supplemental
   record to further ﬂesh out the facts behind a prisoner’s complaint.” 11 These
   documents form a Martinez report. 12[I]f the Martinez report conﬂicts with
   the pro se plaintiﬀ’s allegations, the district court must accept the plaintiﬀ’s
   allegations as true, not the records in the report.” 13
           Accordingly, the magistrate judge in this case ordered the defendants
   to provide authenticated records to further develop the facts of the case. On
   this Court’s review, Welsh’s version of the facts and those contained in the
   Martinez report are in conﬂict. In particular, Welsh claims that TCCC staﬀ
   “slammed” his face into the ﬂoor, that he reported this to Ross Hester, and
   that Hester made false allegations or omitted this information in his later trial
   testimony. These claims conﬂict with Hester’s account, as contained in the
   Martinez report. Instead of accepting Welsh’s allegations as true, it appears
   that the magistrate judge accepted Hester’s aﬃdavit, police report, and grand
   jury testimony as true when recommending to dismiss Welsh’s case, and that
   the district court followed suit.
           Furthermore, both the magistrate and district court judges also
   referenced the state court opinion reversing Welsh’s conviction. Although
   the court may “take judicial notice of documents in the public record . . . and
   may consider such documents in determining a motion to dismiss,” 14 the

           _____________________
           11
                Davis v. Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022) (italics in original).
           12
              See Davis, 35 F.4th at 963; Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997)
   (stating that the court “may require the defendants in prisoner-rights cases to construct an
   administrative record to assist the court in determining whether the complaint is
   frivolous.”); Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1991) (requiring that the
   records be properly identified and authenticated).
           13
                Davis, 35 F.4th at 964 (italics in original).
           14
                R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 639 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005).

                                                     5
Case: 22-10311          Document: 00517025244               Page: 6       Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                            No. 22-10311

   documents “should be considered only for the purpose of determining what
   statements [they] contain, not to prove the truth of [their] contents,” 15 and
   typically must be attached to the complaint. 16 While Welsh referenced the
   state court opinion in his complaint, he did not attach a copy of the opinion
   to his complaint.
          If the district court determines that Welsh’s suit is not precluded by
   prior decisions, it then must evaluate whether the magistrate judge properly
   identiﬁed and resolved any factual conﬂicts between Welsh’s complaint and
   the Martinez report.
                                                 III.
          For the reasons stated above, we VACATE and REMAND for
   reconsideration of the issues identiﬁed in this opinion. If the district court
   believes it may beneﬁt from the assistance of counsel, the district court is free
   to appoint counsel on remand.

          _____________________
          15
               Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1996).
          16
               See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).

                                                  6