McIntosh v. Goings ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30399 Document: 00516858409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
August 15, 2023
No. 22-30399 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
James McIntosh,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Robert Goings, former sergeant; Jonathan Stringer, Lieutenant;
Jacob Waskom, Major; Louisiana State, through Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections Rayburn Correctional Center;
Mickey Dillon, Lieutenant,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:21-CV-1719
______________________________
Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
James McIntosh, Louisiana inmate # 582793, appeals the dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, against the defendants. The district court determined
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30399 Document: 00516858409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2023
No. 22-30399
that McIntosh’s excessive force claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). McIntosh relatedly argues that the district court erred by
admitting and relying on prison disciplinary reports that constituted hearsay
in reaching its decision. He further contends that the district court
erroneously denied his motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation
due to the defendants’ failure to preserve surveillance video of various parts
of the use-of-force incidents and that the district court erred by dismissing
his state-law tort claims without remand. McIntosh has abandoned his
argument concerning remand of his state law claims by inadequately briefing
it. See Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 2016).
“[I]n 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 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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87(footnote omitted). If a favorable finding under § 1983 would necessarily
imply the invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence, “the complaint
must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487. Heck applies to prison
disciplinary convictions that result in the loss of good-time credits, and it is
immaterial whether the plaintiff in fact seeks the restoration of good-time
credits. Gray v. White, 18 F.4th 463, 467 (5th Cir. 2021).
McIntosh contends that our precedents holding that Heck (1) applies
to prison disciplinary convictions and (2) applies even where a prisoner does
not expressly contest the loss of good-time credits or seek to recover lost
good-time credits are in conflict with Heck and Muhammad v. Close, 540 US
749 (2004), as well as our own prior Heck decisions. We have repeatedly
2
Case: 22-30399 Document: 00516858409 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/15/2023
No. 22-30399
rejected such arguments, including in appeals brought by McIntosh’s
counsel. See Santos v. White, 18 F.4th 472, 476 (5th Cir. 2021); Aucoin v.
Cupil, 958 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2020); Gray, 18 F.4th at 467; Autin v.
Goings, No. 21-30678, 2023 WL 3004142 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2023); see also
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-49 (1997) (applying Heck to prisoner’s
§ 1983 claim challenging his prison disciplinary hearing). Furthermore,
McIntosh does not challenge the district court’s fact-specific Heck analysis.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
Cir. 1987). He accordingly fails to show error in the conclusion that the
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of Heck.
See McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012); FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(a).
McIntosh relatedly shows no error in the district court’s use of prison
disciplinary reports to help determine whether his excessive force claims
were Heck barred, as those reports were offered not to prove the truth of their
contents but to show that prison officials had found him guilty of various
disciplinary infractions. See Santos, 18 F.4th at 477; Gray, 18 F.4th at 470.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
McIntosh’s request for an adverse inference based on spoliation of the prison
surveillance videos. See Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 2015).
McIntosh fails to address the court’s relevant finding that an adverse
inference would not alter the Heck calculus. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
The judgment is AFFIRMED. Additionally, in light of our prior
rejections of counsel’s arguments regarding Heck’s applicability and the
admissibility of the prison disciplinary reports in indistinguishable
circumstances, as well as counsel’s failure to address the district court’s fact-
specific findings supporting its Heck ruling, counsel is CAUTIONED that
sanctions may be imposed for bringing frivolous appeals. See United States v.
3
Case: 22-30399 Document: 00516858409 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/15/2023
No. 22-30399
Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806,
808 (5th Cir. 1988).
4