June 23, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Clark v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 24-30201, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), prisoner suit
    • Affirming partial summary judgment that inmate’s sec. 1983 claim was Heck-barred, and affirming denial of motion for leave to amend.
    • Torriana Clark, an inmate at Rayburn Correctional Center in Louisiana, filed a § 1983 lawsuit alleging that Lt. Lance Wallace used excessive force against him during a medical incident. Clark claimed that Wallace violently twisted his ankle, choked him, and slammed him to the ground, causing him to lose consciousness and suffer injuries. However, prison officials presented conflicting accounts through disciplinary reports and supplemental officer statements, asserting that Clark was behaving erratically, resisting officers, and had admitted to smoking an unknown substance. Based on these reports and the fact that Clark pleaded guilty to charges of defiance and aggravated disobedience, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding Clark’s excessive force claim barred under Heck v. Humphrey because it implied the invalidity of his disciplinary convictions, which resulted in a loss of good-time credits.
    • The Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and agreed that Heck applied. Under Heck, a § 1983 claim is barred if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or disciplinary ruling that affected the duration of confinement. Clark attempted to distinguish between the events described in two reports—one by Nichols and another by Wallace—arguing that his excessive force claim related only to Wallace’s conduct after Nichols had stopped restraining him. The court rejected this argument, finding that Clark’s consistent assertion that he did not resist at all was incompatible with his guilty plea to resisting officers. Video evidence also confirmed that Wallace’s alleged conduct occurred during the same timeframe as the resistance that formed the basis of the disciplinary ruling. Therefore, success on Clark’s § 1983 claim would undermine the factual basis of his disciplinary conviction, triggering the Heck bar.
    • The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Clark’s motion to amend his complaint. Although Rule 15 generally favors granting leave to amend, such leave may be denied where the amendment would be futile. Clark proposed amending his petition to align with video evidence that purportedly supported his claim of non-resistance. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that even with those amendments, the petition would still fail under Heck because the alleged facts would remain inconsistent with his guilty pleas and disciplinary findings. The court found no abuse of discretion and deemed amendment futile. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full.

Unpublished

  • Andrus v. Hunnicutt, 24-11031, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), habeas corpus
    • Affirming dismissal of sec. 2241 petition.
  • U.S. v. Copeland, 25-30027, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Sede v. Bullock, 24-30393, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Willett), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment for defendant on claims arising from automobile accident.
  • U.S. v. Green, 24-30608, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 38-month sentence on conviction of bank robbery.
  • U.S. v. Brooks, 24-30735, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 24-30739, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Sauceda v. Lopez, 24-40174, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Oldham, Hendrix, by designation), qualified immunity
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissing excessive force and false arrest claims against police officer on qualified immunity basis that “curtilage” was not clearly established at time of conduct.
  • U.S. v. Carcasses, 24-40552, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 18-month sentence on conviction of transporting an illegal alien within the United States.
  • U.S. v. Perez-Jimenez, 24-40786, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Robillia, 24-60303, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 420-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.
  • U.S. v. Griffin, 22-60453, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Ho), habeas corpus
    • Affirming conviction and 262-month sentence for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, upholding denial of sec. 2255 motion to vacate sentence on basis of ineffectiveness of counsel.
  • Marroquin v. Bondi, 24-60461, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), immigration
    • Denying Guatemalan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Lopez Marroquin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Gonzalez-Buendia v. Bondi, 24-60495, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition to review BIA order dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge denying her request for cancellation of removal and ordering her removed.
  • Mananova v. Bondi, 24-60504, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Russian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.