Rickey Hargrove v. Donna Welborn-Hawkins, et al, No. 16-20054 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-20054 Document: 00513726012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20054 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RICKEY L. HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY DONNA M. WELBORN-HAWKINS, In her Individual and Official Capacity; DOES I THROUGH THE HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-1494 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rickey L. Hargrove, Texas prisoner # 1294506, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. According to Hargrove, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Donna Welborn-Hawkins and other unnamed prosecutors violated his right to due process because there was no evidence that Hargrove committed a crime. Hargrove contends that WelbornPursuant 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20054 Document: 00513726012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 No. 16-20054 Hawkins acted beyond the scope of her duties as a prosecutor when she fabricated evidence, which she then presented to the grand jury to obtain an indictment. In the district court and this court, Hargrove alleges no facts in support of his claim that the prosecutors fabricated evidence that was used against him. Rather, he merely presents conclusory allegations and relies on a purported lack of physical evidence, an inconclusive DNA report, and inconsistent statements of a prosecution witness as support for his civil rights claims. Even under de novo review, therefore, Hargrove fails to show error in the district court’s conclusion that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars his civil rights claims and thus his complaint fails to state a claim for relief. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hargrove’s motion requesting judgment for relief sought is DENIED. 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.
