Scott v. Fiesta Auto Center ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50943
Summary Calendar
RICHARD SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FIESTA AUTO CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO; GEORGE WHITCHURCH;
RAY CARDENAS; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; RANDY MURPHREE, Individually and as alleged
“sheriff” of Hamilton County, Texas; J.R. SLOUGH; JIM BUSTER;
H.D. WESTMORELAND; 6 UNNAMED “SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES” AND JAILERS
OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TEXAS; THOMAS E. WHITE, Individually and as
alleged County Attorney of Hamilton County, Texas; CHARLES
GARRETT, Individually and as alleged County Judge of Hamilton
County, Texas; DEBBIE RUDOLPH, Individually and as County
Clerk of Hamilton County, Texas; TERRY OGLESBY, Individually and
as County Court Clerk of Attorney of Hamilton County, Texas; B.J.
SHEPHERD, Individually and as District Attorney for the 220th
Judicial District for the County of Hamilton, Texas; JIM
BOATWRIGHT, Individually and as Hamilton County Commissioner of
Precinct 1; MIKE LEWIS, Individually and as Hamilton County
Commissioner of Precinct 2; JON BONNER, Individually and as
Hamilton County Commissioner of Precinct 3; MARION STRIEGLER,
Individually and as Hamilton County Commissioner of Precinct 4;
TOM W. CRUM, Visiting County Court Judge; JAMES MORGAN, Judge
of the 220th District Court of Hamilton, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-00-CV-265
--------------------
September 7, 2001
No. 00-50943
- 2 -
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Scott appeals the dismissal of his civil rights
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Scott
argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his suit
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h).
A district court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2001).
Generally, if it appears from the face of the complaint that
a federal claim is without merit, the court should dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and not on jurisdictional grounds.
Sarmiento, 939 F.2d at 1245(citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678,
(1946)). However, dismissal for want of jurisdiction is
appropriate if the federal claim is frivolous or a mere matter of
form. Id. (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)).
Scott argues that he has been arrested and jailed three
times by sheriff’s deputies who were not in compliance with Texas
Constitution, Article 16 § 1 because they either did not have
current oaths of office or did not have then on file with the
Texas Secretary of State.
To state a claim for relief in an action brought under
*
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.
No. 00-50943
- 3 -
§ 1983, Scott must establish that he was deprived of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that
the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50
(1999); Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 200
(5th Cir. 1994). A violation of state law is not cognizable
under § 1983. Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521,
525 (5th Cir. 1994). Johnson, 38 F.3d at 200.
The crux of Scott’s argument is that his arrest,
imprisonment, and prosecution are without legal effect because
the Texas officials responsible for actions against him have not
complied with the Texas Constitution’s requirements for oath
taking. Scott fails to articulate a violation of a federal
right, save a conclusory allegation that the appellees' actions
violated his due process rights. Merely alleging a
constitutional violation or making a conclusory allegation is
insufficient. Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir.
1997). Because Scott’s claims about noncompliance with the Texas
Constitution are frivolous, dismissal for want of jurisdiction
was appropriate.
Scott argues that he was denied due process by the Texas
court in a criminal proceeding against him and that he was
falsely arrested and imprisoned. Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), "in order to recover damages for
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove
No. 00-50943
- 4 -
that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus, 28 U.S.C. S 2254." If a favorable judgment on a false
arrest claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
plaintiff's conviction, his § 1983 claims must be dismissed
pursuant to Heck. See Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th
Cir. 1995). Even if, however, Scott is acquitted, because
Scott’s claims about false arrest rest on violations of state
law, they are not cognizable under § 1983. See Johnson, 38 F.3d
at 200.
Scott argues that his case presents such extraordinary
circumstances that he is entitled to intervention by the federal
court under an exception to the Rooker-Feldman and Younger
abstention doctrines. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413, 415 (1923); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Because
Scott is not challenging the denial of his motion to stay the
state court proceedings, these cases do not apply to him.
Instead, Scott’s conditions-of-confinement claims ostensibly fall
under the purview of § 1983. However, Scott merely references
his district-court complaint to argue his conditions-of-
confinement claims. These claims are not properly before this
court because an appellant's argument must contain the reasons he
deserves the requested relief "with citation to the authorities,
statutes and parts of the record relied on," and he may not adopt
by reference pleadings filed in the district court. Yohey v.
No. 00-50943
- 5 -
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(quotation and
citation omitted) (28 U.S.C. § 2254 case); see Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.