Randell Laws v. Lynn Hughes , 616 F. App'x 200 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-20759 Document: 00513211786 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-20759 FILED
Summary Calendar September 29, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RANDELL GLEN LAWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUDGE LYNN N. HUGHES; JUDGE JERRY E. SMITH; JUDGE
CATHARINA HAYNES; JUDGE JAMES E. GRAVES, JR.,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CV-3320
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Randell Glen Laws, Texas prisoner # 1256902, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) suit. The district court determined that his suit was
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because the named defendants,
judges who had issued rulings in connection with Laws’s federal habeas case,
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20759 Document: 00513211786 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
No. 14-20759
were absolutely immune from suit. On appeal, Laws argues that the
defendants are immune only from his request for monetary damages and not
from the equitable and declaratory relief that he is seeking in connection with
the defendants’ allegedly erroneous habeas rulings. He also asserts that he is
actually innocent, and he details what he views as the numerous errors made
by the district court in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and by this court
in affirming the denial of his § 2254 petition. Laws’s motion to amend his
appellate brief is GRANTED.
We review the district court’s dismissal of Laws’s suit de novo. See
Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2012). Laws is correct that
judges are not entitled to absolute immunity from suit for injunctive or
declaratory relief. See Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 925
F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir. 1991). We can affirm the district court’s dismissal,
however, on any basis, see United States v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589, 602 n.12 (5th Cir.
2002), and we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Laws’s suit
pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) because Laws’s conclusory allegations that the
defendants fraudulently conspired to violate his constitutional rights fail to
state a nonfrivolous claim for relief under § 1985(3). See § 1985(3); Sanford v.
Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009); Fontenot v. Texas, 44 F.3d 1004 (5th
Cir. 1994); McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The district
court’s dismissal of Laws’s § 1985(3) suit counts as a strike for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
Laws has at least two other strikes. See Laws v. Texas, 4:14-CV-2223 (S.D.
Tex. Oct. 15, 2014); Laws v. 179th District Court of Harris County, Tex., 4:05-
CV-2969 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2006). As Laws has three strikes for purposes of
§ 1915(g), he is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action while he is
2
Case: 14-20759 Document: 00513211786 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
No. 14-20759
incarcerated or detained, unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
3