Jeremy Haddix v. State of Texas , 448 F. App'x 498 ( 2011 )

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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