Court Opinion

ID: 9407978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 00:00:36.345953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.004999
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50055         Document: 00516815040             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50055
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Willie Fennell, Jr.,                                                                Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Sally Hernandez, Travis County Sheriff; Malissa Eldridge;
   Jeremy Sylestine; FNU LNU, Arresting Officer,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CV-948
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Willie Fennell, Texas prisoner # 2224292, appeals from the district
   court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged that
   his appointed defense counsel, various police officers, and the state
   prosecutor violated his federal constitutional and state rights by failing to take
   him before a magistrate judge within 48 hours after his arrest and thereafter
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50055      Document: 00516815040           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                     No. 23-50055

   subjecting him to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of
   process, and falsification of official records. The district court dismissed
   Fennell’s instant complaint as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
   because he had raised the same factual allegations and claims previously.
   Alternatively, the district court dismissed Fennell’s complaint on other
   grounds, including that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity and
   Fennell’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
          Although Fennell’s claims were duplicative of those raised in an
   earlier complaint, we will rely on the district court’s alternative grounds for
   dismissal. We review the district court’s dismissals based on absolute
   immunity and Heck de novo and, in doing so, we take the facts alleged in the
   complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to Fennell. Colvin
   v. LeBlanc, 2 F.4th 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2021); Walter v. Torres, 917 F.2d 1379,
   1383 (5th Cir. 1990). Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit for
   actions performed within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v.
   Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-24, 431 (1976). Because Fennell challenged the
   prosecutor’s actions in his role as an advocate for the State, the district court
   correctly determined that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity.
   Moreover, although Heck was one of the bases for the district court’s
   dismissal of Fennell’s complaint, Fennell does not specifically address Heck
   on appeal. He has therefore waived this issue by failing to brief it. See Yohey
   v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
   Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). In any event, our
   examination of Fennell’s claims show that the district court did not err by
   holding that they were barred under Heck.
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2