Joe Conway v. Caldwell County Sheriff's Off

Case: 15-50283 Document: 00513792977 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-50283
FILED
December 12, 2016
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOE W. CONWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF DANIEL LAW, In his
official and non-official capacity; DETECTIVE ALLEN, In his official and non-
official capacity; DEPUTY EVANS, In his official and non-official capacity;
DEPUTY MCCONNELL, In his official and non-official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CV-69
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Joe W. Conway, Texas prisoner # 1904890, appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment and denial of motions for leave to file an amended
complaint and reconsideration. Conway does not challenge the dismissal of his
claims against the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office or the denial of his motion
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50283 Document: 00513792977 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2016
No. 15-50283
for appointment of counsel. Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Our review is de novo.
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
Conway’s claims against Sheriff Law, Detective Allen, Deputy Evans,
and Deputy McConnell are barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994), and Conway’s guilty plea does not prevent this bar, see
Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the facts
are incompatible with the application of the independent source doctrine. See
Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7.; United States v. McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203, 207-210,
207 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321, 327 (5th
Cir. 2000). Thus, he cannot prevail. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872
(5th Cir. 1996)(“[I]t is improbable that doctrines such as independent source,
inevitable discovery and harmless error would permit the introduction of [the
item found during the allegedly unlawful search] as evidence in this case . . . .
[so] a successful section 1983 action . . . would imply the invalidity of [the
defendant’s] conviction.”) Lastly, Conway has not shown that the district court
erred in denying his motions to amend, see Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631,
648 (5th Cir. 2013); Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner, Inc., 602 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir.
2010), or that the appellees’ brief should be stricken as untimely.
MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED; AFFIRMED
2