Jeremy Haddix v. State of Texas ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-10201     Document: 00511655670         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/04/2011
    
    
    
    
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                        Fifth Circuit
    
                                                                                FILED
                                                                             November 4, 2011
                                         No. 11-10201
                                       Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
    
    JEREMY RYAN HADDIX,
    
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellant
    
    v.
    
    STATE OF TEXAS; JUSTIN SMITH; KENNETH MOSER; MICHAEL
    GUADET; STEPHANIE MILLER; BILL MOORE,
    
                                                      Defendants-Appellees
    
    
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Northern District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 3:10-CV-2352
    
    
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
            Jeremy Ryan Haddix filed the instant civil rights suit to seek redress for
    the alleged wrongful actions of several police officers and state prosecutors
    following a traffic stop that resulted in his arrest and conviction for possession
    of a prohibited weapon. He also raised claims against appointed counsel and the
    judge who oversaw his criminal proceedings. The district court dismissed
    Haddix’s suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which
    
    
           *
             Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
       Case: 11-10201    Document: 00511655670       Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/04/2011
    
                                       No. 11-10201
    
    relief could be granted after concluding that the issues raised in his original and
    amended complaints were barred by immunities and Heck v. Humphrey,
    
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994). This appeal ensued.
          We conduct a de novo review of a § 1915(e)(2) dismissal for failure to state
    a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hale v. King, 
    642 F.3d 492
    , 497 (5th
    Cir. 2011). Although the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the
    plaintiff, he must nonetheless allege sufficient facts to establish a valid claim to
    meet this standard. City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 
    632 F.3d 148
    ,
    152-53 (5th Cir. 2010).
          In his brief to this court, Haddix insists that his conviction is invalid due
    to the improper actions of the defendants, but he does not assert that his
    conviction has been overturned or even dispute the district court’s determination
    that this conviction was still outstanding. Haddix has shown no error in
    connection with the district court’s Heck determination. See Mireles v. Waco,
    
    502 U.S. 9
    , 9-10 (1991); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 
    491 U.S. 58
    , 66 (1989);
    Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. He likewise has shown no error in connection with the
    district court’s determination that certain defendants were entitled to sovereign,
    prosecutorial, and judicial immunity, nor has he shown that the district court
    erred by considering the immunity issue. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 
    424 U.S. 409
    ,
    423 (1976); Boyd v. Biggers, 
    31 F.3d 279
    , 284 (5th Cir. 1994). As the district
    court concluded, Haddix’s claims against his appointed attorneys fail because
    these individuals were not proper parties to this suit. See Mills v. Criminal Dist.
    Court No. 3, 
    837 F.2d 677
    , 679 (5th Cir. 1988).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
                                             2