Robinson v. Cornyn

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50794
Summary Calendar
LARRY D. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN CORNYN; KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY;
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.; HENRY HYDE; RON PAUL; DICK ARMEY;
ROBERT MUELLER; MARK V. RICH; CHARLES D. ELDER; STEVEN C.
McGRAW; CURTIS A. HENSCHEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CV-250
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry D. Robinson appeals from the dismissal of his lawsuit
against various Federal officials for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). To the extent Robinson
seeks to challenge the court’s ruling in a prior proceeding that
relied upon Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), he is barred
from doing so by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See United
States v. Shanbaum, 11 F.3d 305, 311 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-50794
-2-
Robinson was not entitled to any of the relief he sought in
his complaint. See Keener v. Congress, 467 F.2d 952, 953 (5th
Cir. 1972). Therefore, we do not address whether the defendants
were entitled to immunity from Robinson’s action. The district
court did not err by dismissing Robinson’s action for failure to
state a claim. See Woodard v. Andrus, 419 F.3d 348, 351 (5th
Cir. 2005).
Robinson contends that his various motions for leave to
amend his complaint and for leave to reply to various responsive
pleadings should have been granted because they were unopposed.
He does not contend that the district court erred by denying
those motions because he had failed to state any federal claim.
Robinson has failed to brief the relevant issue for appeal. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Robinson’s contention that the district court erred by
issuing a sanction warning does not present a live case or
controversy. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The
district court merely warned Robinson; it did not actually
sanction him. Finally, Robinson lists as an issue, but does not
brief, whether the district court erred by denying his motion for
the costs of personal service. We need not address it. See
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
AFFIRMED.