eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-04

Richards v. Hearn ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-20358     Document: 00516265565         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 4, 2022
No. 21-20358                        Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                           Clerk
Billy Richards, also known as Billy Holmes,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Charles J. Hearn; Bryan Collier; Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Parole Division,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-3684
Before Stewart, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Billy Richards seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal
the district court’s dismissal of his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint, in which he
alleged that the state court judge who presided over his 1980 aggravated
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20358       Document: 00516265565          Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/04/2022
No. 21-20358
robbery trial lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings and
entered a void judgment and that the Executive Director of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division imposed punitive parole
conditions based on the void judgment.           The district court dismissed
Richards’s complaint, determining that his claims called into question the
validity of his conviction and were thus could not be presented in light of Heck
v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994), and that the state judge was entitled to
absolute immunity. By moving in this court to proceed IFP, Richards is
challenging the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith because he had not shown that he will present a
nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
Before this court, Richards argues that Heck does not bar his claims
and that the judge is not entitled to immunity, given that the judgment of
conviction is void. As his complaints about the judge arise from “acts
performed in the exercise of . . . judicial functions,” the judge was entitled to
immunity. Boyd v. Biggers,
    31 F.3d 279
    , 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Additionally,
because Richards’s claims fall into question the validity of his state
conviction, and because he has not established that this conviction has
already been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid, he may not
obtain monetary damages. See Heck,
    512 U.S. at 487
    . To the extent he is
challenging the denial of injunctive relief by the district court, Richards’s
claims are a challenge to the validity of his conviction that must be pursued
in habeas proceedings. See Johnson v. McElveen,
    101 F.3d 423
    , 424 (5th Cir.
1996). Richards has also not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. See
Dearmore v. City of Garland,
    519 F.3d 517
    , 620 (5th Cir. 2008).
The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Richards’s motion
2
Case: 21-20358      Document: 00516265565           Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/04/2022
No. 21-20358
to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,
    117 F.3d at 
    202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In 2010, Richards was warned that
further frivolous filings could result in monetary sanctions. See Holmes v.
Thaler, No. 09-20454 (5th Cir. June 8, 2010) (unpublished one-judge order);
Holmes v. Thaler, No. 09-20167 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) (unpublished one-
judge order). Given the number of years between those orders and the instant
proceedings, we decline to impose sanctions at this time. However, Richards
is warned that that any further filing of repetitious or frivolous civil rights
complaints challenging his 1980 conviction may result in the imposition of
sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary
sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any
court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
IFP      MOTION          DENIED;          APPEAL         DISMISSED;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3