Fountain v. Thomas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 15, 2023
Docket23-40171
StatusUnpublished

This text of Fountain v. Thomas (Fountain v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fountain v. Thomas, (5th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

Case: 23-40171 Document: 00516969149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED November 15, 2023 No. 23-40171 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Brett Fountain,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Clifford Wayne Thomas; Wood County Criminal District Attorney’s Office; Angela Lea Albers,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:22-CV-431 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Brett Fountain was convicted of a misdemeanor traffic violation in Texas state court. Fountain then filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials involved in the state prosecution. For example, Fountain alleged that the special prosecutor “pretended he was the elected criminal district attorney of Wood County,” Texas.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40171 Document: 00516969149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2023

No. 23-40171

Fountain’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck bars actions for damages under § 1983 (1) when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of their conviction, and (2) that conviction has not “been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 486–87. Fountain’s conviction has not been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid. Accordingly, he cannot proceed with this § 1983 claim for damages. Id.; Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fountain v. Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-thomas-ca5-2023.