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. Bohlke ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-60845     Document: 00515995181         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/25/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                         United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 25, 2021
No. 19-60845                     Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                        Clerk
Willie Hampton,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Thomas J. Bohlke, Collectively Defendant’s Individually and in their
Official Capacity; James E. Rambo, Collectively Defendant’s Individually
and in their Official Capacity,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CV-106
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. He appeals the dismissal of his action against two federal law
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 19-60845      Document: 00515995181           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/25/2021
No. 19-60845
enforcement officers, brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971). 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 magistrate judge, who decided the case by consent, 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
(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.
2
Case: 19-60845      Document: 00515995181          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/25/2021
No. 19-60845
Due to the repetitive and conclusional nature of this action, Hampton
is warned that the filing of further repetitive or frivolous actions or appeals
related to his convictions, sentences, and forfeiture proceedings will result in
sanctions, including monetary sanctions and limits on his access to this court
and any court subject to our jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION
WARNING ISSUED.
3