eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-07

Fennell v. Hernandez ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 23-50055         Document: 00516815040             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50055
Summary Calendar                                   FILED
____________                                     July 10, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Willie Fennell, Jr.,                                                                Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sally Hernandez, Travis County Sheriff; Malissa Eldridge;
Jeremy Sylestine; FNU LNU, Arresting Officer,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CV-948
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Willie Fennell, Texas prisoner # 2224292, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint in which he alleged that
his appointed defense counsel, various police officers, and the state
prosecutor violated his federal constitutional and state rights by failing to take
him before a magistrate judge within 48 hours after his arrest and thereafter
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50055      Document: 00516815040           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/10/2023
No. 23-50055
subjecting him to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, and falsification of official records. The district court dismissed
Fennell’s instant complaint as malicious under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i)
because he had raised the same factual allegations and claims previously.
Alternatively, the district court dismissed Fennell’s complaint on other
grounds, including that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity and
Fennell’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994).
Although Fennell’s claims were duplicative of those raised in an
earlier complaint, we will rely on the district court’s alternative grounds for
dismissal. We review the district court’s dismissals based on absolute
immunity and Heck de novo and, in doing so, we take the facts alleged in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to Fennell. Colvin
v. LeBlanc,
    2 F.4th 494
    , 497 (5th Cir. 2021); Walter v. Torres,
    917 F.2d 1379
    ,
1383 (5th Cir. 1990). Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit for
actions performed within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v.
Pachtman,
    424 U.S. 409
    , 420-24, 431 (1976). Because Fennell challenged the
prosecutor’s actions in his role as an advocate for the State, the district court
correctly determined that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity.
Moreover, although Heck was one of the bases for the district court’s
dismissal of Fennell’s complaint, Fennell does not specifically address Heck
on appeal. He has therefore waived this issue by failing to brief it. See Yohey
v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). In any event, our
examination of Fennell’s claims show that the district court did not err by
holding that they were barred under Heck.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2