Penley v. Collin County Texas

Fifth Circuit

Penley v. Collin County Texas

446 F.3d 572, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9871, 2006 WL 935673

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2006

Docket05-40565

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 446 F.3d 572 (Penley v. Collin County Texas) 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

Penley v. Collin County Texas, 446 F.3d 572, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9871, 2006 WL 935673 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Paul Christopher Penley, currently serving a fourteen-year prison sentence for involuntary manslaughter, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several officials of Collin County, Texas. Penley claims that evidence of his crime was destroyed, which prevents him from availing himself of the opportunity for DNA testing provided by Texas law. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, applying the *573 same standard used for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. 1

Penley seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $ 2 million for the alleged improper destruction of blood evidence that was used to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. The district court dismissed Penley’s claims on several grounds: lack of standing, judicial immunity (as applied to Charles Sandoval, Judge of the 380th District Court of Collin County, Texas), absolute immunity (as applied to John Roach, current district attorney of Collin County, Texas, and Tom O’Connell, former district attorney of Collin County, Texas), qualified immunity (as applied to Lisa Renfro, court reporter of the 380th District Court of Collin County, Texas), and Heck v. Humphrey. 2

Heck bars all of Penley’s claims. To the extent that the district court were to award Penley damages on his claim regarding the destruction of evidence and the loss of the opportunity for DNA testing, the validity of his conviction would be implicitly questioned. Under Heck, Pen-ley’s claim is not actionable because he has not shown that his conviction has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, invalidated by other state means, or called into question by the issuance of a federal habeas writ. 3 According-, ly, the district court’s dismissal of Penley’s § 1983 claims is AFFIRMED.

1

. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir.2003).

2

. 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

3

.Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct 2364.

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

PER CURIAM:

Paul Christopher Penley, currently serving a fourteen-year prison sentence for involuntary manslaughter, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several officials of Collin County, Texas. Penley claims that evidence of his crime was destroyed, which prevents him from availing himself of the opportunity for DNA testing provided by Texas law. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, applying the *573 same standard used for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. 1

Penley seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $ 2 million for the alleged improper destruction of blood evidence that was used to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. The district court dismissed Penley’s claims on several grounds: lack of standing, judicial immunity (as applied to Charles Sandoval, Judge of the 380th District Court of Collin County, Texas), absolute immunity (as applied to John Roach, current district attorney of Collin County, Texas, and Tom O’Connell, former district attorney of Collin County, Texas), qualified immunity (as applied to Lisa Renfro, court reporter of the 380th District Court of Collin County, Texas), and Heck v. Humphrey. 2

Heck bars all of Penley’s claims. To the extent that the district court were to award Penley damages on his claim regarding the destruction of evidence and the loss of the opportunity for DNA testing, the validity of his conviction would be implicitly questioned. Under Heck, Pen-ley’s claim is not actionable because he has not shown that his conviction has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, invalidated by other state means, or called into question by the issuance of a federal habeas writ. 3 According-, ly, the district court’s dismissal of Penley’s § 1983 claims is AFFIRMED.

1

. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir.2003).

2

. 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

3

.Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct 2364.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 F.3d 572, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9871, 2006 WL 935673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penley-v-collin-county-texas-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack