Michael W. Carpenter v. Wesley Mau
03-13-00075-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 27, 2015Background
- Michael W. Carpenter was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 40 years on October 8, 2003.
- Carpenter filed two postconviction habeas applications (2007 and 2011), both summarily denied.
- On October 6, 2011 Carpenter (pro se, inmate) filed a civil suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Assistant District Attorney Wes W. Mau, alleging Brady-type and other prosecutorial misconduct related to the criminal trial.
- Mau and Hays County moved to dismiss / for summary judgment on grounds that the suit was time-barred, barred by prior adjudications, and that Mau (and the County) are immune from suit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mau; Carpenter appealed. The appellee brief defends the summary judgment on statute-of-limitations, res judicata/collateral estoppel, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and governmental/sovereign immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Carpenter sought equitable/declaratory relief to remedy trial errors and avoid future violations; limitations should not bar relief | Claim accrued at latest on conviction date (Oct 8, 2003); four-year limitations expired in 2007, so 2011 suit untimely | Summary judgment affirmed — claim time-barred |
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel | Civil suit raises distinct equitable claims not precluded by criminal process | Issues were previously raised/considered in criminal appeals and habeas applications; offensive collateral estoppel applies | Summary judgment affirmed — prior adjudications bar relitigation |
| Absolute prosecutorial immunity | Plaintiff seeks equitable relief for prosecutor’s conduct at trial | Conduct complained of was performed by Mau in his prosecutorial/judicial role; prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase | Summary judgment affirmed — Mau entitled to absolute immunity (immunity from suit) |
| Governmental / sovereign immunity | Suit against Mau should proceed despite official-capacity nature | Claims against prosecutor in official capacity are effectively against Hays County/state subdivision; governmental immunity bars suit absent legislative waiver | Summary judgment affirmed — governmental immunity bars suit against the county/official capacity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (threshold question whether prosecutor is absolutely immune)
- Rusk State Hospital v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (purposes of sovereign immunity and protecting public treasury; early immunity rulings to avoid wasteful litigation)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (pragmatic purposes of governmental immunity and legislative role in waiving immunity)
- Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to overcome immunity defenses and to plead waiver)