Landers v. Adelstein

Case: 20-40322 Document: 00516006715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 8, 2021
No. 20-40322 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Gary Lee Landers,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sherri Adelstein,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-79
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gary Lee Landers, Texas prisoner # 1906095, appeals the district
court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed
against Sherri Adelstein, the Clerk of Court for Denton County. In the
complaint, Landers alleged that Adelstein denied him procedural due process
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40322 Document: 00516006715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2021
No. 20-40322
and was deliberately indifferent to violating his constitutional rights by failing
to timely forward to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) his
objections to the trial court’s findings on his state habeas application. On
appeal, Landers argues that the district court erred in finding that he failed to
identify a protected liberty interest; that the court erred in finding that
Adelstein was not personally involved; that the court erred in finding he
failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference; that the court denied due
process during the resolution of the complaint; and that the court erred in
determining Adelstein was entitled to absolute and qualified immunity.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In re Katrina
Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). “The grant of a
motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity similarly is reviewed de
novo.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013). “To state a
claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege two elements: first, that they were
deprived of a right or interest secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and second, that the deprivation occurred under color of state
law.” Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir.
1995).
Landers’s challenge to the district court’s finding of absolute
immunity is to no avail because he acknowledges the immunity finding was
applied only to the extent he raised a claim Adelstein was acting under court
order or at the discretion of a judge and that he raised no such claim. Landers
failed to state a claim of the denial of a constitutional right because he did not
show the denial of the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. See
Price v. City of Junction, Tex., 711 F.2d 582, 589 (5th Cir. 1983) (discussing
nature of procedural due process claim). The affidavit submitted by
Landers’s son averred that a clerk confirmed the TCCA had reviewed the
objections and had concluded that they did not alter the outcome of the
2
Case: 20-40322 Document: 00516006715 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/08/2021
No. 20-40322
proceedings. Accordingly, there is no indication that his objections were not
considered by the TCCA.
His assertions that Adelstein was not entitled to qualified immunity
fail as he cannot establish the denial of a constitutional right. See Whitley, 726
F.3d at 638 (stating that a plaintiff must show official violated constitutional
right to overcome qualified immunity). Likewise, because there is no
violation of a constitutional right, Landers cannot show that Adelstein was
deliberately indifferent to a violation of his constitutional rights. See Porter v.
Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011) (establishing showing for supervisory
liability). As the failure to show a violation of a constitutional right is
dispositive, see Doe, 66 F.3d at 1406, it is unnecessary to address his argument
regarding Adelstein’s personal involvement.
Finally, the claim that the district court denied due process during the
instant proceedings by failing to adequately review the affidavit from Charles
is not supported by the record. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3