Ricky J. Shugart v. David Thompson, A.K.A. "Lead Agent," A.K.A. "Agents" and Unknown Deputies, A.K.A. "Agents" Each in Their Individual and Official Capacities, Sheriff's Department of Fannin County

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 1, 2016
• Docket: 06-15-00101-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECEIVED In fikk JT^W^- ^"dW8'8 - <*/9/7*7/-/S£TD JUL 0 1 2016 /3?/ /7f J31% %^ 27, Z*M nT!.xarkana, Texas . ^TZ^ruM*. C£m*4 7} Debra Autrey, Clerk ?S70

/#/ tf, Sh4t IhjL Aal+Zo 7*oXr£y»a. -jpc 7TTOf

%£% S^»v4- fa Tfayyosv*; et. 2^. j/joy. fat, /V<> 0& -/T-/0/-CI/

& RECEIVED IN The Court of Appeals

"7 JUL 012016 /3V/& ?3Z$ Utonc £7i> 2&/£ Texarkana, Texas * 7&#nc/te£. &/jwf 7$? Debra Autrey, Clerk ^STfO Vadfe. Jed Af&ffti^ M foc/fi Jfo?e//£& dfsMeJ-Judy.

7*#z2rfo

«/>>^ :. j/\* gZ+ rfy.M w^, r . ^ , / .._ y), .. .. r.»

AnaQju *» o4vW^W'£ &. 6it Ak*A>-AAu£^Ap^'Ar &M. M. fef, See /foe//eeJ-&hfAkJ^f^7/J^J.^^^^ Weptifo&toi

ae&to*J?Juj£J'A) Afar£w7jpuftfeeWn/M Afa-ffld/r^AlLJ&f»

Mdtf/tqefJiirMihS NO. 15-40235

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

RICKY JOE SHUGART, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT

V.

SIX UNKNOWN FANNIN COUNTY SHERIFFS; STATE OF TEXAS, ^FANNIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY)- ewr -sfa*M

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00782

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES SIX UNKNOWN FANNIN COUNTY SHERIFFS

James C. Tidwell State Bar No. 20020100 WOLFE, TIDWELL & McCOY, LLP 320 North Travis Street, Suite 205 Sherman, Texas 75090 (903) 868-1933 (tel.) (903) 892-2397 (fax) Case: 15-40235 Document: 00513548201 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/14/2016

clear that the District Court properly saw that the overall intent and effect of

Shugart's suit in federal court was a collateral attack on his criminal conviction.

As such, the District Court properly dismissed Shugart's suit, there is no

recognized due process claim under the facts alleged and Heck supports proper

dismissal. Shugart's case below is really just another run at Plaintiffs criminal j

case and argument over whether or not the various officers should have entered

the property, and as such it is a prohibited collateral attack on a valid criminal

conviction. Clearly, the claims being asserted bear a direct relationship to the

conviction and are prohibited. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

The District Court's findings and dismissal of Plaintiffs suit should be affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs suit was properly

dismissed. There is no claim against a state actor under the Fifth Amendment.

Jones v. City ofJackson, 203 F.3d 875, 877 (5,h Cir. 2000). Similarly, Shugart "^

cannot show that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated. '

The Supreme Court has held that "an unauthorized intentional deprivation of

property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a

meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available." Hudson v. Palmer,

468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). fn this case Shugart could, and has, sued for the same

- II - Case: 15-40235 Document: 00513548201 Page: 19 Date Filed: 06/14/2016

alleged injury in state court. (Appendix 1) Such a claimjs an adequate post- *~\

deprivation remedy. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). ' ?

Given the lack of a Due Process claim, that again takes us back to the fact that this /

case is really about his arrest and conviction. - •'

.- Further, this is not a forfeiture case where an entity is seeking to take >.\

possession of an item of value for its own use and forfeiture cases are not

applicable to the case presented. The issue in this case is the handling of the

dome, which by Shugart's own pleading, never left the property. It is undisputed — j£. that the dome was used for illegally growing large amounts of marijuana and thus

was clearly used in the commission of a crime. It appears that the illegal growing \

ofmarijuana was the dome's only real use. 'Regardless, the issue Shugart raises, "vV"^ 'P y the alleged improper destruction of the dome is the type of matter left to state law

and state court. (Appendix 1) Not every alleged action rises to the level of a

federal civil rights suit.

Shugart plead guilty to the criminal act associated with the dome. Further,

Shugart's pleadings themselves admit that Shugarfplanted the seeds in the dome •

and illegally grew the marijuana in the dome. In this suit, Shugart, post

conviction, seeks to challenge a litany of issues related to entry, search, arrest and

seizure, including damage to the dome, that all grew out of the same events - the

- 12- *,^\ Case: 15-40235 Document: 00513548201 Page: 27 Date Filed: 06/14/2016

Shugart v. DEA, 3L96-CV-00013 (See Appendix 2) Thus, multiple factors support

the District Court's dismissal of this suit.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For these reasons, it is requested that the Court uphold the District Court's

orders dismissing this litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

WOLFE, TIDWELL & McCOY, LLP 320 North Travis Street, Suite 205 Sherman, Texas 75090 (903)868-1933 fr^dnm**ti mMsh fa (903) 892-2397 FAX

By: /s/ James C. Tidwell James C. Tidwell State Bar No. 20020100

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Original Petition State Law Complaint filed in the 336th Judicial District, Fannin County, State of Texas.

APPENDIX 2 Miscellaneous Court Records of Shugart

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

I, James C. Tidwell, do hereby certify that I have electronically submitted for

filing, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Brief in accordance with

-20-