Nelson v. Cauley, et al, No. 05-10646 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 14, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-10646 Summary Calendar STEVEN RAY NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KEVIN CAULEY, Etc.; ET AL, Defendants, KEVIN CAULEY, State Trooper; SERGIO REYES, Officer; HANK HAVENS, Deputy; SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OF ROCKWALL COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CV-828 -------------------Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Steven Ray Nelson, Texas prisoner # 1130776, appeals the district court s dismissal of his excessive-force claims against Deputy Hank Havens and the Rockwall County Sheriffs Department (Rockwall County). He does not challenge the denial of his defamation claims or his excessive-force claims against Officers Cauley and Reyes, and this court declines to review such claims. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-10646 -2See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d at 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court concluded that Nelson s excessive-force claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because they would call into question the validity of Nelson s convictions for aggravated assault on a public servant. See Sappington v. Bartee, 195 F.3d 234, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the district court considered evidence outside the pleadings in denying relief, its FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim should be construed as a summary judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 56. See Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281, 1283-84 (5th Cir. 1990). Nelson contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Havens because Havens s trial testimony indicated that he hit Nelson with his pistol at a time that Nelson was falling out of his car. He also postulates that Havens may have sprayed mace on him after Nelson was arrested and handcuffed. He maintains that because these actions may have occurred when Nelson was no longer placing the officers in danger, his excessive-force claims would not call into question the validity of his conviction for aggravated assault of a police officer. See, e.g., Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952-53 (9th Cir. 1996), cited favorably in Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 1996). Nelson has not presented sufficient evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact relating to the No. 05-10646 -3district court s conclusion that his claims were premature pursuant to Heck. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Nelson also maintains that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Rockwall County, based on the office s failure to train Havens properly. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Havens s use of force, Rockwall County cannot be held liable for a failure to train. See Shields v. Twiss, 389 F.3d 142, 151 (5th Cir. 2004). judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED. The
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
