Harmon Taylor v. Barbara Hale

Fifth Circuit

Harmon Taylor v. Barbara Hale

396 F. App'x 116

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 2010

Docket09-11057

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 396 F. App'x 116 (Harmon Taylor v. Barbara Hale) 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

Harmon Taylor v. Barbara Hale, 396 F. App'x 116 (5th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Harmon Luther Taylor (Taylor) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Fed. R.CivP. 12(b)(6). Taylor sued the defendants after receiving a traffic citation for driving without a license. Our review is de novo. See True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir.2009). Accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in favor of the plaintiff, we must determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007). We may affirm dismissal on any basis supported by the Rule 12(b)(6) record. See R2 Inv. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir.2005). Taylor’s failure to brief his arguments is a valid basis for affirming the dismissal of *117 his complaint. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). However, we also find that Taylor has failed to set forth a legally cognizable claim against the defendants. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); James v. Harris County, 577 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir.2009); Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir.1996). Further, with respect to Taylor’s assertions regarding the magistrate judge and district court, we caution Taylor that any future filing containing abusive, disparaging and contemptuous language will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303-04 (5th Cir.1978).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Harmon Luther Taylor (Taylor) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Fed. R.CivP. 12(b)(6). Taylor sued the defendants after receiving a traffic citation for driving without a license. Our review is de novo. See True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir.2009). Accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in favor of the plaintiff, we must determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007). We may affirm dismissal on any basis supported by the Rule 12(b)(6) record. See R2 Inv. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir.2005). Taylor’s failure to brief his arguments is a valid basis for affirming the dismissal of *117 his complaint. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). However, we also find that Taylor has failed to set forth a legally cognizable claim against the defendants. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); James v. Harris County, 577 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir.2009); Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir.1996). Further, with respect to Taylor’s assertions regarding the magistrate judge and district court, we caution Taylor that any future filing containing abusive, disparaging and contemptuous language will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303-04 (5th Cir.1978).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F. App'x 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-taylor-v-barbara-hale-ca5-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack