Melvin Schield v. James Brawner

Case: 13-40619 Document: 00512644242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 13-40619
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 28, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
MELVIN R. SCHIELD, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JAMES BRAWNER; CHRISTOPHER HENKEN; CHRIS CARSON; STEVEN
GREENWELL; BRAD SOWELL; RICHARD HILBURN,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CV-87
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In 2013, Melvin R. Schield, formerly Texas prisoner # 1717742, was
serving a 10-year sentence following his 2011 conviction of possession of at
least 400 grams of tetrahydrocannabinol and possession of marijuana weighing
between 50 and 2000 pounds. Schield filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights complaint alleging that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 13-40619 Document: 00512644242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2014
No. 13-40619
rights in 2009 when they conducted an illegal search and seizure on his
property, which resulted in the discovery of the aforementioned drugs and
ultimately led to his 2011 conviction. He further alleged that the defendants
committed perjury during the 2011 trial when they testified falsely regarding
the circumstances of the search and seizure. Schield now appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
Because the district court dismissed Schield’s § 1983 complaint as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim under § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2), this
court’s review is de novo under the same standard that is used to review a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134
F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
To the extent that Schield’s claims for damages imply the invalidity of
Schield’s conviction, they are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). To the extent that Schield’s claims are not barred by Heck, he
has not demonstrated that the district court erred by dismissing the claims as
time barred. See Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006). As
Schield’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is dismissed as frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2