Terry James v. Dallas Police Department ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-11208      Document: 00513091470         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/24/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-11208
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 24, 2015
    TERRY R. JAMES,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    SERGEANT PAUL SCHAFER; OFFICER PATRICIO E. ZAMARRIPA,
    (#XO112); OFFICER JOHN W. ROBERTS, (#4337),
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:12-CV-457
    Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Terry R. James moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
    appeal. The district court denied James’s motion to appeal IFP and certified
    that his appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving in this court for leave
    to proceed IFP, James challenges the district court’s certification decision. See
    Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-11208     Document: 00513091470      Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/24/2015
    No. 13-11208
    James argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint
    and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their asserted
    defense of qualified immunity.       When qualified immunity is raised as a
    defense, there is no liability for actions that do not “violate clearly established
    statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
    known.” Brown v. Miller, 
    519 F.3d 231
    , 236 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted). James contends that the defendants violated his
    clearly established constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches
    and seizures when they arrested him inside of his house, without an arrest
    warrant or probable cause.
    “The Fourth Amendment . . . prohibits the police from making a
    warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a
    routine felony arrest.” Payton v. New York, 
    445 U.S. 573
    , 576 (1980). James
    does not contest that he invited the arresting officers, Roberts and Zamarripa,
    into his home. Once lawfully inside, they could “take further action supported
    by any consequent probable cause.” Georgia v. Randolph, 
    547 U.S. 103
    , 118
    (2006). Further, James has not briefed and has thus waived any argument
    challenging the district court’s determination that, under the independent
    intermediary doctrine, the independent findings of the grand jury conclusively
    established probable cause and shielded Roberts and Zamarripa from liability
    for false arrest. See Morris v. Livingston, 
    739 F.3d 740
    , 752 (5th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 2734
    (2014). Because James has not raised a genuine issue
    of material fact regarding Roberts or Zamarripa causing him a constitutional
    deprivation, his appeal of the summary judgment in their favor is frivolous.
    See S.E.C. v. Recile, 
    10 F.3d 1093
    , 1095 (5th Cir. 1993).
    By asserting no facts and making no argument regarding Schafer’s
    liability, James has waived any challenge to the summary judgment in favor
    2
    Case: 13-11208   Document: 00513091470       Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/24/2015
    No. 13-11208
    of Schafer. See 
    Morris, 739 F.3d at 752
    . His appeal thereof is thus also
    frivolous. See Atwood v. Union Carbide Corp., 
    847 F.2d 278
    , 279-81 (5th Cir.
    1988).
    James has failed to show that his appeal involves any arguably
    meritorious issue. See Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
    Accordingly, we DENY his motion and DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See
    
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-11208

Judges: Dennis, Southwick, Haynes

Filed Date: 6/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024