Pete Joe VILLEGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Phillip GALLOWAY; Elizabeth Eppie; M. Todd; Pamela Hayter; Yolanda Washington; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-20821
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2012.
Summary Calendar.
Vinzant challenges several evidentiary and discovery rulings: the denial of his motion to extend the deadline for evidentiary motions and the trial date; the allowance of the United States’ motions in limine after the deadline for evidentiary motions; the refusal to consider his argument on mitigation; and the decision to end the trial after one day.
Vinzant‘s only explanation as to why these rulings constitute an abuse of discretion is that they were adverse to him. Although the rulings prejudiced Vinzant‘s case, just as any adverse ruling prejudices a party‘s case, we are not persuaded that the prejudice was unfair. Instead, the record reveals some evidentiary rulings favoring Vinzant and others disfavoring him. This reflects a lack of bias.
2.
Vinzant‘s argument that the judge did not properly weigh the evidence is similarly defective. Vinzant argues that the judge, faced with conflicting testimony, should have resolved the conflict in his favor, but he offers no reason why the judge‘s resolution in the United States’ favor constitutes clear error.
Vinzant‘s witnesses testified that the trailing van hit the lead van before being rear-ended by the civilian vehicle, driven by Every. The United States’ witnesses testified that Every‘s car hit the trailing van first, pushing it into the lead van. The district court judge found the United States’ witnesses more credible. Vinzant invites us to reverse this credibility determination, and in so doing to take on the role of the trier of fact. This invitation contradicts our precedent, and we refuse to accept it. See Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We cannot second guess the district court‘s decision to believe one witness’ testimony over another‘s or to discount a witness’ testimony.“). We hold that the district court committed no error in weighing the evidence.
III.
The appellant, Vinzant, challenges two dispositive rulings: a dismissal of his claims against State Farm and Every and a dismissal of his seatbelt theory asserted against the United States. Vinzant also challenges numerous evidentiary and discovery rulings and the district court judge‘s weighing of the evidence.
We have considered all of the arguments and find no reversible error. The district court‘s judgment is
AFFIRMED
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pete Joe Villegas, currently federal prisoner # 20355-179, was paroled in 2001 after serving a sentence for a Texas drug conviction. On April 29, 2003, law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at a residence where Villegas was staying and found numerous firearms. Villegas was indicted on two federal firearms charges and was convicted by a jury in 2005. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 120 and 90 months in prison. In addition, Texas revoked his parole in April 2006. This court affirmed Villegas‘s federal conviction in 2007.
In August 2010, Villegas filed a complaint against numerous defendants involved in his arrest, prosecution, con
Villegas contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claims as time barred, as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and for failure to state a claim. We review de novo a dismissal as both frivolous and for failure to state a claim under
We first conclude that the individual capacity claims against Judge Lee Rosenthal, who presided over Villegas‘s criminal trial, and the four federal prosecutors that he sued—Hazel Jones, Richard Magness, Michael Shelby, and Chuck Rosenberg—are barred by absolute immunity, a threshold question that is appropriate to address before reaching whether a claim is barred by Heck. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343-44, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (addressing absolute prosecutorial immunity); Davis v. Tarrant County, 565 F.3d 214, 221-22 (5th Cir.2009) (addressing absolute judicial immunity); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir.1994) (“[I]t remains appropriate for district courts to consider the possible applicability of the doctrine of absolute immunity ... as a threshold matter.“); Hulsey v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir.1995) (absolute immunity is a threshold matter that should be determined as early as possible in a proceeding). Villegas alleged no facts that would overcome immunity of either Judge Rosenthal1 or the four federal prosecutors. Similarly, to the extent that they participated in the decision to revoke Villegas‘s parole, the parole hearing officers, Diane Schwartz, Sandy Fletcher, and Donna Graham-Green, and parole officers Elizabeth Eppie, M. Todd, and Pamela Hayter, are absolutely immune from suit. See Hulsey, 63 F.3d at 356; Farrish v. Miss. State Parole Bd., 836 F.2d 969, 975-76 (5th Cir. 1988). With respect to any actions by these defendants regarding the criminal prosecution and parole revocation that might fall outside the scope of absolute immunity, the claims are barred by Heck as discussed below.
Villegas‘s arguments that his federal conviction was obtained through constitutional violations at trial, including ineffective assistance of counsel, use of perjured testimony and fabricated evidence, intimidation of witnesses, suppression of favorable evidence, and a conspiracy by the defendants to imprison him, necessarily imply that his conviction was invalid. Thus, as his federal conviction has not been reversed, expunged, or invalidated, his claims are barred. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1994). The same is true of Villegas‘s claims that his parole revocation proceeding was the product of false testimony and evidence tampering, and that his parole was wrongly revoked. See McGrew v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir.1995). Villegas concedes as much, but he argues that a separate parole charge for a differ
With respect to Villegas‘s claims arising out of the allegedly unlawful search and seizure, Villegas correctly argues that a claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not necessarily implicate the validity of the underlying criminal conviction. Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.1995). However, such claims are time barred. For a civil rights action, federal courts borrow the Texas personal injury statute of limitations, which is two years. Texas Clinical Labs, Inc. v. Leavitt, 535 F.3d 397, 407 (5th Cir.2008); Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.2002). Villegas‘s claims accrued when he became aware that he suffered an injury or had sufficient information to know that he has been injured. See Hitt, 301 F.3d at 246. The alleged Fourth Amendment violations and purportedly unlawful arrest underlying Villegas‘s claims took place in April 2003, more than seven years before he filed his complaint.
Villegas contends that he was falsely imprisoned as a result of these violations, and that a claim of false imprisonment does not begin to run until the false imprisonment ends. According to Villegas, under Texas law, false imprisonment is a continuing tort and, therefore, his claim will not accrue until he is released. Villegas is mistaken. Federal law, not state law, determines when a claim accrues. See Hitt, 301 F.3d at 246. In addition, false imprisonment ends when the defendant is held pursuant to legal process, such as when he is arraigned or bound over by a magistrate. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). Here, any claim of false imprisonment arising out of the allegedly unlawful search and seizure accrued in 2003, when a magistrate judge found probable cause to detain Villegas pending trial. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed those claims as time barred. See id. at 391-92, 127 S.Ct. 1091.
In his brief, Villegas makes no mention of his assault and battery claims or any state law bases for his claims. He has, therefore, abandoned those issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). He likewise has abandoned any challenge to the court‘s conclusion that he failed to state a claim under
Finally, Villegas requests leave to file a supplemental brief to address two arguments that he did not have time to address because he was required to complete his brief in his § 2254 appeal. Supplemental briefs are ordinarily not allowed. 5TH CIR. R. 28.4. Further, Villegas was granted two briefing extensions totaling nearly 60 days, and he nevertheless filed his brief more than two months past the extended deadline. He fails to explain, beyond a conclusional assertion, why he had insufficient time to address his other arguments, nor do we see any basis in the record or the applicable legal principles to conclude that additional briefing would alter our analysis.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.