eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-08

Hampton v. Tunica Cty Mississippi ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-60232    Document: 00515993106       Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60232                      August 24, 2021
Summary Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Willie Hampton,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Tunica County Mississippi, Municipal Corporation, Collectively,
Defendants Individually, In their official capacities; Lieutenant Jerome
Hudson; Tunica County Sheriff’s Department; Charles
B. Graves, Jr.; Tunica County Prosecutor; Agent James
Jones, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics; Tunica Board of
Supervisors; Thomas J. Bohlke, Special Agent; Jerry L.
Ellington, Sheriff of Tunica,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CV-103
Case: 20-60232      Document: 00515993106          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 20-60232
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Willie Hampton, federal prisoner # 79948-011, is serving a life
sentence imposed in 2001 after a jury convicted him of drug-trafficking
offenses. Proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he appeals the dismissal of his
action brought under
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    . Hampton alleged a conspiracy that
resulted in his arrest and conviction, as well as a state law forfeiture of cars
and cash and a federal forfeiture of real property. Years of state court
litigation resulted in the return, in 2018, of his cars and cash based on a
violation of his speedy-trial rights. We dismissed an appeal of the federal
forfeiture in 2003.
The district court dismissed the action as untimely and as barred by
collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. All of the issues Hampton raises in
his complaint and brief were conclusively decided against him in his criminal
proceeding, his first proceeding under
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , a 2006 federal civil
rights action, or the federal forfeiture action. Under the doctrines of issue
preclusion and claim preclusion, these issues may not be relitigated against
these defendants. See United States v. Shanbaum,
    10 F.3d 305
    , 310-11 (5th
Cir. 1994); United States v. Mollier,
    853 F.2d 1169
    , 1175 n.7 (5th Cir. 1988);
Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp.,
    871 F.2d 1279
    , 1288-89 (5th Cir. 1989); see also
Heck v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (1994).
In any event, his assertions are too vague and conclusional to state any
constitutional violation. See Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge,
    761 F.2d 242
    ,
244 (5th Cir. 1985). To the extent Hampton contends he is entitled to a
hearing on the speedy-trial factors of Barker v. Wingo,
    407 U.S. 514
    , 530-35
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-60232      Document: 00515993106           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 20-60232
(1972), his claim is moot because he prevailed on that issue in state court. See
Los Angeles Cnty. v. Davis,
    440 U.S. 625
    , 631 (1979).
In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. We need not examine whether, under Mississippi law,
Hampton’s state litigation tolled the limitations period in which he could
raise claims based on the state forfeiture.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).    See Coleman v. Tollefson,
    575 U.S. 532
    , 537 (2015).
Hampton is warned that, if he accumulates a total of three strikes, he will be
barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Hampton is further warned that the
filing of further frivolous or repetitive actions or appeals challenging his
convictions, sentences, or forfeitures, even if he is not proceeding IFP, will
result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions and limits on his access to
this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
APPEAL        DISMISSED             AS    FRIVOLOUS;          STRIKE
IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3