Ahmadi v. Lumpkin

Case: 21-20341 Document: 00516237976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 14, 2022
No. 21-20341 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Reza Ahmadi,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division; David G. Gutierrez, Chair;
Charley Valdez, Program Supervisor III Classification and Records,
TDCJ-ID,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-3260
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Reza Ahmadi, formerly Texas prisoner # 1713862, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints, which
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20341 Document: 00516237976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
No. 21-20341
he filed after this court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983
complaints as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Relying on Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2), Ahmadi argues that he should be permitted
to amend his complaints at this time. He further argues that his complaints
are not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim because, based on the
allegations in his amended complaints, he can satisfy the favorable
termination requirement set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994).
Because the district court dismissed Ahmadi’s § 1983 actions, he is
not permitted to amend his complaints. See Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352,
360 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Ahmadi’s proposed arguments do not
establish that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, invalidated, or
otherwise set aside. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. His § 1983 claims are
therefore barred by Heck. Id. In light of the foregoing, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmadi’s motion to amend his
complaints. See Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613, 621 (5th Cir. 2001).
Ahmadi’s current appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. This court
has previously warned Ahmadi that filing frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise
abusive filings would invite the imposition of sanctions. See Ahmadi v. Davis,
806 F. App’x 329 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, a SANCTION IS
IMPOSED. Ahmadi is ordered to pay a monetary sanction in the amount
of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. The clerk is directed not to accept
for filing from Ahmadi any pleading until the sanction is paid unless he first
obtains leave of this court. Ahmadi is also WARNED that the filing of
frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges to his conviction or
confinement will invite the imposition of sanctions, which can include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
2