Joe Conway v. Caldwell County Sheriff's Off, et al, No. 15-50283 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-50283 Document: 00513792977 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50283 Summary Calendar FILED December 12, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOE W. CONWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF DANIEL LAW, In his official and non-official capacity; DETECTIVE ALLEN, In his official and nonofficial capacity; DEPUTY EVANS, In his official and non-official capacity; DEPUTY MCCONNELL, In his official and non-official capacity, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CV-69 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joe W. Conway, Texas prisoner # 1904890, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and denial of motions for leave to file an amended complaint and reconsideration. Conway does not challenge the dismissal of his claims against the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office or the denial of his motion 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-50283 Document: 00513792977 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 No. 15-50283 for appointment of counsel. Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Our review is de novo. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Conway’s claims against Sheriff Law, Detective Allen, Deputy Evans, and Deputy McConnell are barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and Conway’s guilty plea does not prevent this bar, see Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the facts are incompatible with the application of the independent source doctrine. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7.; United States v. McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203, 207-210, 207 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, he cannot prevail. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996)(“[I]t is improbable that doctrines such as independent source, inevitable discovery and harmless error would permit the introduction of [the item found during the allegedly unlawful search] as evidence in this case . . . . [so] a successful section 1983 action . . . would imply the invalidity of [the defendant’s] conviction.”) Lastly, Conway has not shown that the district court erred in denying his motions to amend, see Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 648 (5th Cir. 2013); Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner, Inc., 602 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2010), or that the appellees’ brief should be stricken as untimely. MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED; AFFIRMED 2

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.