Stephens v. Tarrant County

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 25-10342
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10342 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

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

No. 25-10342 FILED July 16, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Antoine Demone Stephens,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Tarrant County District Attorney Office; Sharon Wilson; Officer Dawley,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CV-68 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Antoine Stephens, Texas prisoner #1419836, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), based on the district court’s finding that the complaint was both untimely and barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We review de novo the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint as frivolous _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10342 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

No. 25-10342

under §§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). On appeal, Stephens does not address the district court’s time-bar or Heck determinations. His failure to identify any error in the district court’s reasons for dismissing his § 1983 action is the same as if he had not appealed at all. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Stephens has accordingly waived any challenge to the dis- missal of his § 1983 action. See Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is AFFIRMED. The dismissal of Stephens’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). Accordingly, Stephens is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).