Court Opinion

ID: 9391044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 00:01:03.425468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.019905
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51099        Document: 00516731020             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-51099                                   April 28, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________
                                                                                      Clerk
   John D. Ferrara,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Terry Jay Wallace, Sr., Veterans Affairs Police Chief; Jeffrey B.
   Barnett, Police Chief - City of Kyle; Edward Sandoval, Cameron
   County District Attorney’s Office; Pete Sepulveda, Jr., County
   Administrator; City of Kyle; Et al.,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:20-CV-1128
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ferrara brings a § 1983 action alleging a variety of claims. The district
   court dismissed the case and denied Ferrara’s subsequent Rule 60(b) motion.
   Ferrara appeals this denial. We AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51099      Document: 00516731020           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                     No. 22-51099

          On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff-Appellant John Ferrara, proceeding
   pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
   various    constitutional    claims    against    Defendants-Appellees.      He
   subsequently amended this complaint. Although his live complaint is difficult
   to follow, Ferrara’s claims appear to stem from his January 2019 arrest, his
   subsequent prosecution, his December 2019 “no contest” plea, and his
   September 2020 motion in Cameron County Court to change his plea.
          On January 7, 2021, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of
   Ferrara’s case, in part because his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
   512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
   recommendation in full on January 29, 2021. Ferrara then filed three
   additional cases against various Defendants-Appellees; two of these cases
   were dismissed as frivolous, and the magistrate judge in the last (fourth) case
   recommended dismissal on res judicata grounds on October 28, 2022. To
   avoid dismissal of his fourth case, Ferrara filed a motion in the instant (first)
   case requesting modification of the January 29, 2021 judgement under Rule
   60(b) as to claims related to the City of Kyle. In this motion, he asserted that
   Heck no longer barred his claims due to various events in 2022:
          On or about January 28, 2022, a matter tied to the claims
          presented in this venue has ended in [Ferrara’s] favor. Further
          on or about May 23, 2022, an agreed order was signed to grant
          the Pro Tem assigned to the cause to remove said office from
          any further proceedings related to [Ferrara]. In the agreed
          order, the Pro Tem stated the office met the obligations of the
          State and the duty to perform any further actions was
          concluded. On or about May 31, 2022, the bail bond [Ferrara]
          was subjected too [sic] was removed and dissolved.
   The district court denied this motion, holding that “Plaintiff does not argue
   or establish that his 2019 conviction has been invalidated and does not

                                              2
Case: 22-51099     Document: 00516731020           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                    No. 22-51099

   present facts or arguments that would show that the underlying conclusion
   that this case is barred by Heck was incorrect.” Ferrara timely appeals.
          Ferrara appeals the district court’s denial of this motion to modify the
   judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6). “We review Rule 60(b) decisions for
   abuse of discretion.” Roberts v. Wal-Mart La., L.L.C., 54 F.4th 852, 854 (5th
   Cir. 2022). Rule 60(b)(5) allows the court to relieve a party from a final
   judgment when “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it
   is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
   it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). And
   Rule 60(b)(6) is a “a residual or catch-all provision,” Edwin H. Bohlin Co. v.
   Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir. 1993), where relief “will be granted
   only if extraordinary circumstances are present,” Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d
   212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Ferrara has not shown circumstances evincing an abuse of discretion
   under either Rule 60(b) provision, even under the more liberal standard
   afforded to pro se litigants. On appeal, he first mischaracterizes the district
   court’s order denying his motion as “agree[ing] that facts have changed and
   remov[ing] language previously listed in the initial [January 29, 2021]
   judgement.” The order reveals no such agreement or removal. Instead, the
   district court held that Ferrara had not shown that the underlying 2019
   conviction had been invalidated as required to prevent dismissal of the
   underlying case under Heck. 512 U.S. at 486–87. On appeal, Ferrara concedes
   that his claims arising out of the January 2019 matter are barred by Heck.
          Ferrara’s other arguments fare no better. His unsubstantiated
   assertions concerning various events in 2022 are insufficient to show that the
   underlying 2019 conviction has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged
   by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make

                                             3
Case: 22-51099        Document: 00516731020        Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                    No. 22-51099

   such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a
   writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 487.
          We also do not credit Ferrara’s argument that the 2022 events that
   preceded his Rule 60(b) motion involved the validity of a separate May 2020
   arrest for felony stalking (i.e., not the 2019 events he concedes are subject to
   the Heck bar). Construing his arguments liberally, Ferrara seems to aver that
   the claims in this case relevant to the City of Kyle are not barred by Heck
   because they stem from this May 2020 arrest, which he alleges was
   invalidated in 2022. It is not clear that he made these arguments in the
   district court, but regardless, his argument is unavailing on the merits.
   Ferrara has not presented any evidence indicating that his May 2020 arrest
   was in fact invalidated. Even assuming that it was, Ferrara’s May 2020 arrest
   does not form the basis for his claims in this case. The live complaint lists
   only his 2019 arrest, his 2019 prosecution, and his 2019 plea as events that
   gave rise to his claims; other filings also treat the 2019 events as the primary
   events that underlie his § 1983 claims.
          Thus, we are not persuaded that the complaint or any subsequent
   pleadings evince § 1983 claims arising out of the May 2020 arrest. Even if
   they did, Ferrara has not shown that the May 2020 arrest was invalidated to
   preclude the application of Heck. Instead, as the district court correctly
   determined, this § 1983 suit arises out of Ferrara’s January 2019 conviction,
   which Ferrara has not shown was invalidated. Accordingly, the district court
   correctly applied Heck to dismiss Ferrara’s underlying § 1983 litigation and
   acted within its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion arguing for a
   contrary result.
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                              4