Holmes v. White

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60209
Summary Calendar
HILTON DEWITT HOLMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GLENN WHITE, in his official capacity
as District Attorney of the Eighth Circuit
district, and individually, ET AL.,
Defendants,
GLENN WHITE, in his official capacity
as District Attorney of the Eighth Circuit
District, and individually,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:95-CV-329-PS
- - - - - - - - - -
November 25, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hilton Dewitt Holmes, Mississippi prisoner #79891, appeals the
district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action on the
grounds of prosecutorial immunity and claim preclusion. Holmes
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-60209
- 2 -
contends that Mississippi District Attorney Glenn White conspired
to defraud him of his property in a state forfeiture proceeding,
that the forfeiture was a violation of his right to protection
from double jeopardy, and that White coerced him into pleading
guilty to conspiracy to commit capital murder.
Holmes has abandoned any claims against Forrest County and
USF&G by failing to brief them. Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Holmes
asserts for the first time a violation of his right to protection
against double jeopardy. Holmes has not shown error, plain or
otherwise relating to his double-jeopardy claim. Robertson v.
Plano City of Tex., 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995); see United
States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996)(civil forfeitures
are not criminal and do not constitute "punishment”; the
Government may bring a parallel criminal action and an in rem
civil forfeiture proceeding without violating double jeopardy).
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and find no error in the decision of the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons advanced
by the district court. Holmes v. White, No. 2:95-CV-329-PS (S.D.
Miss. Feb. 14, 1996).
AFFIRMED.
No. 96-60209
- 3 -