Woodrow Miller v. Harris County, Texas, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-20047 Affirmed as Modified.] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES. Mandate pull date is 10/14/2010 [10-20047]

Woodrow Miller v. Harris County, Texas, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 10-20047

Document: 00511242210

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-20047 S u m m a r y Calendar September 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

W O O D R O W MILLER, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. H A R R I S COUNTY, TEXAS, c/o County Judge Ed Emmett; HONORABLE B E L I N D A J. HILL, Individually and as District Judge; THERESA CHANG, I n d iv id u a lly and as former Harris County District Clerk; CHARLES R O S E N T H A L , Individually and as former Harris County District Attorney; E X E C U T I V E DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; M.D. K A R E N GOLLAHER, Individually and as Agent-Employee of GHBI, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:09-CV-3515

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W o o d r o w Miller, now Texas prisoner # 1535217, filed a civil rights c o m p la in t in the district court seeking an award of damages and declaratory and in ju n c t iv e relief. Miller contended that the defendants violated his right to due

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-20047

Document: 00511242210

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

No. 10-20047 p r o c e s s by acting adversely against him in reliance on a March 2, 2006, order im p o s in g conditions of community supervision in cause number 876,249. The 2 0 0 6 order related to a 2002 order of deferred adjudication. Miller's guilt was a d ju d ic a t e d in 2008. See Miller v. Quarterman, 2009 WL 2163125 (S.D. Tex. J u ly 16, 2009) (unpublished). T h e district court determined that Miller's complaint was barred under the r u le in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). It dismissed the

c o m p la in t as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Miller gave timely notice o f his appeal. We review such dismissals for an abuse of discretion. See Martin v . Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). T h e claims asserted against defendants Belinda Hill and Charles R o s e n t h a l relate to acts performed in their judicial and prosecutorial capacities. Because Hill and Rosenthal are absolutely immune from suit, the dismissal with p r e ju d ic e of Miller's claims against them is AFFIRMED. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F .3 d 279, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994). M ille r contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint w it h o u t giving him an opportunity to show that the Heck bar does not apply. Miller has not shown in his brief that he could have made such a showing, and h e did not make such a showing in his motion for a new trial. See also Martin, 1 5 6 F.3d at 580 (recognizing that there is no requirement that a plaintiff be g iv e n notice prior to dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to § 1915A). Because the March 2, 2006, order imposing conditions of community s u p e r v is io n was rendered in Miller's criminal case, and because a decision in his fa v o r against the remaining defendants would necessarily imply the invalidity o f the deferred adjudication order and the judgment adjudicating his guilt, the d is t r ic t court properly dismissed Miller's claims against the remaining d e fe n d a n t s for damages as premature. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; DeLeon v. C ity of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649, 656 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that a deferred

2

Case: 10-20047

Document: 00511242210

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

No. 10-20047 a d ju d ic a t io n order is a conviction for the purposes of Heck's favorable t e r m in a t io n rule). Miller also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Because t h e claims for declaratory and injunctive relief call into question the validity of t h e deferred adjudication order and order adjudicating his guilt, they were d is m is s e d properly under the rule in Heck. See Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 1 9 0 -9 1 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Because the preferred practice is to dismiss H e c k -b a r r e d claims with prejudice to their being asserted again until the Heck c o n d itio n s are met, see DeLeon, 488 F.3d at 657, the judgment is modified a c c o r d in g ly . T h e district court's implicit refusal to take supplemental jurisdiction over M ille r 's request for an accounting of payments made against a fine and court c o s t s imposed in connection with the judgment adjudicating his guilt is c o n s t r u e d as a dismissal of that claim without prejudice. See Connors v. Graves, 5 3 8 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 2008). M i l l e r 's contention that the Prison Litigation Reform Act is

u n c o n s t it u t io n a l is foreclosed. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 290-91 (5 t h Cir. 1997). A F F I R M E D AS MODIFIED.

3