Johnson v. Bradford

Fifth Circuit

Johnson v. Bradford

72 F. App'x 98

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 22, 2003

Docket01-20704

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 F. App'x 98 (Johnson v. Bradford) 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

Johnson v. Bradford, 72 F. App'x 98 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Howard Johnson, Texas prisoner #785828, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and summary judgment in favor of defendants Michael Burdick and Douglas McNaul. There is no merit to Johnson’s contention that his Fourth Amendment claims relating to the search of his apartment and seizure of cocaine are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Johnson’s argument that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive force claim is equally unavailing. “[Hjandcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force.” Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir.2001). Johnson’s challenge to the defendants’ alleged death threats does not present a claim of physical injury and therefore fails to state an excessive force claim. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir.1999). Johnson’s claim that the other officers did not intervene to stop Officer Burdick also fails, as Johnson has not shown that Officer Burdick was using excessive force. Therefore, there was no need for intervention. See Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir.1995). Johnson’s allegation of a conspiracy among the officers to violate his rights is conclusions!

Finally, Johnson’s assertions that he was not allowed sufficient discovery or the opportunity to amend his complaint are without merit. See Wicks v. Mississippi State Employment Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants Bur-dick and McNaul, or in overruling John *100 son’s objections to its rulings on his procedural motions.

Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Howard Johnson, Texas prisoner #785828, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and summary judgment in favor of defendants Michael Burdick and Douglas McNaul. There is no merit to Johnson’s contention that his Fourth Amendment claims relating to the search of his apartment and seizure of cocaine are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Johnson’s argument that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive force claim is equally unavailing. “[Hjandcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force.” Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir.2001). Johnson’s challenge to the defendants’ alleged death threats does not present a claim of physical injury and therefore fails to state an excessive force claim. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir.1999). Johnson’s claim that the other officers did not intervene to stop Officer Burdick also fails, as Johnson has not shown that Officer Burdick was using excessive force. Therefore, there was no need for intervention. See Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir.1995). Johnson’s allegation of a conspiracy among the officers to violate his rights is conclusions!

Finally, Johnson’s assertions that he was not allowed sufficient discovery or the opportunity to amend his complaint are without merit. See Wicks v. Mississippi State Employment Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants Bur-dick and McNaul, or in overruling John *100 son’s objections to its rulings on his procedural motions.

Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

*

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)

72 F. App'x 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-bradford-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack