Court Opinion

ID: 9379434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 18:01:05.631711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.957378
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10767        Document: 00516677484            Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10767
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                               March 15, 2023
   Donnie Earl Phillips, Jr.,                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Robert Ray Cowie; Scott Wisch; Tom Benson; Rob
   Hayden; Mollee Westfall; Patrick Curran; Alejandra
   Estrada; Mamie Bush Johnson; J. Eric Nikols; Scotty
   Jones,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-1362

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Donnie Earl Phillips, Jr., Texas prisoner #0518336, asserted various
   claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to his conviction and sentence for
   driving while intoxicated. The district court granted Phillips’s motion to

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10767      Document: 00516677484           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                     No. 22-10767

   proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the filing of two amended complaints.
   After Phillips filed a second amended complaint, the district court dismissed
   several of his claims with prejudice and entered a partial final judgment pur-
   suant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Phillips v. Cowie,
   No. 4:21-CV-1362, ECF 23 (July 15, 2022) (opinion and order); id. ECF 24
   (partial final judgment). The partial dismissal addressed the claims Phillips
   asserted against his private defense attorneys, several Tarrant County judges,
   and various bail bondsmen. The district court explained that, on the facts
   alleged, the defense attorneys and bail bondsmen are not state actors for pur-
   poses of § 1983, and that the state judges were entitled to absolute immunity.
   Phillips appealed the partial final judgment, and the district court granted his
   motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
          We have jurisdiction to consider appeals from partial final judgments
   where the district court determines that there is no just reason to delay dis-
   missal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Jones v. Singing River Health Servs. Found., 865
   F.3d 285, 292 n.3 (5th Cir. 2017). But where, as here, the appellant proceeds
   in forma pauperis, we must dismiss the appeal if the issues presented are friv-
   olous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Issues are frivolous if they are not “ar-
   guable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
          Phillips’s issues are not arguable on their merits. First, private attor-
   neys are not state actors except in the exceptional case that they conspire with
   an actual state official. Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 1996);
   Mills v. Crim. Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988); see, e.g.,
   Uresti v. Reyes, 506 F. Appx. 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2011). The same is generally
   true of bail bondsmen. Tebo v. Tebo, 550 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 2008); Landy
   v. A-Able Bonding, Inc., 75 F.3d 200, 203–05 (5th Cir. 1996); see, e.g., Cabal-
   lero v. Aamco Bail Bonding Co., No. 97-20617, 1998 WL 414307, at *2 (5th Cir.
   July 16, 1998) (asking whether bondsman “enlisted the assistance of law en-
   forcement officers” or “displayed an arrest warrant”) (citation and internal

                                          2
Case: 22-10767      Document: 00516677484          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10767

   quotation marks omitted). Accepting the facts alleged in Phillips’s second
   amended complaint as true, they do not show that that the defense attorneys
   or the bail bondsmen were acting under color of state law. Second, a judge is
   entitled to absolute immunity from acts taken in his or her judicial capacity.
   See, e.g., Davis v. Tarrant County, 565 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing
   Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978)). Phillips’s complaint alleges
   that one judge wrongfully entered his conviction and that another committed
   a clerical on the judgment. The judges are entitled to absolute immunity be-
   cause those actions were plainly taken in the judges’ judicial capacity.
          The issues raised in Phillips’s appeal are not arguable on the merits.
   We therefore must DISMISS the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291(e)(2)(B)(i).
   The petition for a writ of mandamus and motion to file a supplemental brief
   are DENIED AS MOOT.

                                         3