Lowell Green v. State of Texas Government
704 F. App'x 386
5th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Lowell Quincy Green, a Texas inmate serving life for aggravated robbery, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se and IFP against three state prosecutors (Abelino Reyna, Brandon Derrell Luce, Landon Ramsey) and his court‑appointed trial attorney (Lawrence Johnson).
- Green alleged prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, disobeyed discovery orders, fabricated evidence, pursued charges under a defective indictment, and engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.
- Green alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by Johnson for failing to challenge the indictment, failing to investigate, and failing to move for acquittal or to object to the jury verdict.
- The district court dismissed Green’s complaint as frivolous for failure to state a claim; Green appealed the dismissal.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the IFP dismissal for abuse of discretion and evaluated immunity and cognizability under § 1983 and Heck/Wilkerson doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official‑capacity claims against prosecutors are barred by sovereign immunity | Green sued prosecutors in official capacity for constitutional violations | State (implicitly) that Eleventh Amendment bars official‑capacity suits against state actors | Held: Official‑capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether individual‑capacity claims against prosecutors are actionable or barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity | Prosecutors fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory material, and acted improperly in prosecution | Prosecutors (and court) assert actions fall within prosecutorial functions and are absolutely immune | Held: Individual‑capacity claims barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity |
| Whether appointed counsel acted under color of state law or conspired with state actors (§ 1983 liability) | Johnson failed to investigate, challenge indictment, or pursue post‑verdict motions, amounting to deprivation under § 1983 | Johnson’s conduct was private defense representation, not state action or conspiracy with state officials | Held: Claims against Johnson fail; not acting under color of state law and no conspiracy shown |
| Whether claims challenging conviction are cognizable under § 1983 given Heck/Wilkerson | Green seeks relief that would implicate validity/duration of his confinement | Court invokes Heck/Wilkerson: prior conviction must be invalidated before § 1983 claim attacking conviction is allowed | Held: Claims that challenge conviction are not cognizable under § 1983 because Green has not shown his conviction was invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official‑capacity suits treated as suits against the state and barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d 674 (noting Eleventh Amendment bar in § 1983 context)
- Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895 (prosecutorial absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions)
- Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279 (scope of prosecutorial immunity for actions related to prosecution)
- Bryant v. Military Dep’t of Miss., 597 F.3d 678 (state‑action requirement for § 1983 suits)
- Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (public defender/appointed counsel generally not acting under color of state law)
- Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677 (conspiracy requirement for attaching § 1983 liability to private counsel)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claims challenging conviction not cognizable unless conviction invalidated)
- Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (distinguishing § 1983 from habeas when relief would affect sentence/duration)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (counting frivolous dismissals as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))
- Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187 (definition of frivolous for IFP dismissals)
- Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732 (standard of review for dismissal of IFP complaint as frivolous)
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTIONS DENIED; WARNING ISSUED re: § 1915(g) strikes.