LAW.coLAW.co

HEROD v. POWELL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-05-03No. No. 20-40162

Summary

Holding. The appeal is dismissed as frivolous because Herod presented no arguments with merit, and the court imposed a three-strikes bar against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), preventing him from filing future civil actions while incarcerated except in cases of imminent serious physical danger.

Donald Wayne Herod, an incarcerated Texas prisoner, appealed the dismissal of a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging his arrest. The district court dismissed the case as frivolous under the Heck doctrine because Herod's claims about the arrest amounted to a direct attack on his conviction and 50-year sentence for a third driving-while-intoxicated offense. On appeal, Herod presented no substantive arguments addressing the district court's reason for dismissal.

The appellate court found the appeal itself frivolous because Herod raised no issues with merit to review. The court also rejected several ancillary motions seeking counsel, funding, and relief from prior strikes. Critically, this dismissal marked Herod's third strike under the prison litigation restrictions, meaning he is now barred from filing future civil cases or appeals while incarcerated unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether Herod's arrest claims could proceed as a § 1983 civil rights action
  • Whether the Heck doctrine bars challenges to conviction validity through civil rights suits
  • Application of the three-strikes rule for frivolous litigation by incarcerated persons

Procedural posture

An incarcerated prisoner appealed a district court's dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging unlawful arrest.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Donald Wayne Herod, Texas prisoner # 1538539, appeals the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). The district court properly dismissed the action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because Herods claims based on an allegedly unlawful arrest are direct attacks on his conviction and 50-year sentence for third-offense driving while intoxicated. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996); Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1995).

On appeal, Herod makes no argument relevant to the district courts ground for dismissal. Because Herod identifies no issues “arguable on their merits,” his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Herod has filed motions to appoint counsel, to enter a default judgment, for funding for investigative services, to file supplemental briefing, and to set aside three strikes for frivolous litigation. These motions and all other requests for relief are denied.

Herod received a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from a district court in 2016 for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. Herod v. Cosper, No. 4:16-CV-537 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2016) (unpublished order). This court assessed a strike in 2019 against Herod upon affirming the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. Herod v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 776 F. Appx 231, 233 (5th Cir. 2019). The district courts dismissal of the instant action and our dismissal of this appeal also count as strikes. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537-38, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015). Because Herod has at least three strikes, he is hereby barred from bringing any civil action or appeal while detained or incarcerated in any facility “unless [he] is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED; THREE-STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.