Case Information
*1 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 *2 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); F ED . R. C IV . 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
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.