United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 21, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60341
_____________________
HOUSTON COLLINS; SHARLET BELTON COLLINS; ROBERT EARL COLLINS;
VELMA JEAN COLLINS; DARRELL CALENDER; LARRY VALLIERE;
GREGORY TOLLIVER; SHERMAN TOLLIVER; DWAYNE KEMP; CHRISTOPHER
WONG WON; DETRON BENDROSS; BERNARD VERGIS; ASHLEY GRUNDY;
EDDIE YOUNGBLOOD, III; also known as 2 Live Crew, TIMOTHY
VINCENT YOUNG; PRISCILLA MORRIS; LUTHER JEFFERSON; LEE ESTER
CRUMP; LINDA CHRISTMAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
FRANK AINSWORTH; ET AL,
Defendants,
FRANK AINSWORTH; COPIAH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; COPIAH
COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; RANKIN
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants – Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
USDC No. 3:01-CV-81
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
This appeal arises from an allegedly unconstitutional
roadblock that occurred on June 4, 2000 in Copiah County,
Mississippi. In the present appeal the plaintiffs seek review of
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the denial of injunctive relief provided in separate orders
granting summary judgment for two separate groups of defendants.
The first, granted on March 15, 2005, dismissed all claims by all
plaintiffs against the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department and the
Rankin County Sheriff’s Department (collectively “the Hinds and
Rankin County Defendants”). The second summary judgment, granted
on March 18, 2005, dismissed all claims of five of the plaintiffs2
(collectively “the convicted plaintiffs”) against Frank Ainsworth
and the Copiah County Sheriff’s Department (collectively “the
Copiah County Defendants”). We find no error in the denial of
injunctive relief in either ruling and thus affirm the orders of
the district court. The reasoning for each summary judgment is
stated below.3
I
The March 15, 2005 order granting summary judgment for the
Hinds and Rankin County Defendants states clearly that it is
denying the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. Thus there
is no question as to our jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs’
2
Specifically the five plaintiffs were: Greg Tolliver,
Sherman Tolliver, Priscilla Morris, Larry Valliere, and Luther
Jefferson.
3
We note that the parties differ on the appropriate standard
of review -- i.e., whether we review de novo since this is an
appeal of a summary judgment, see Facility Insurance Corp. v.
Employers Ins. of Wausau, 357 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir. 2004); or for
abuse of discretion since we are considering the denial of
injunctive relief, see Peaches Entertainment Corp. v. Entertainment
Repertoire Associates, Inc., 62 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 1995).
Under either standard the district court committed no error.
2
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (granting appellate
jurisdiction where there has been an interlocutory denial of
injunctive relief).
The plaintiffs have presented no evidence that any of the
Hinds and Rankin County Defendants committed any constitutional
violation. In both their brief and at oral argument, plaintiffs
conceded that the sheriffs of Hinds and Rankin Counties had no
knowledge of any alleged unconstitutional purpose or actions
relating to the June 4 roadblock. Additionally plaintiffs concede
that at all times the deputies of the Hinds and Rankin County
Defendants were acting under the control, authority, and policy of
the Copiah County Sheriff’s Department, having been deputized as
Copiah County deputies for the purposes of the roadblock. Thus the
only basis of plaintiffs’ claim is that the sheriffs of Hinds and
Rankin Counties responded to the request of the Copiah County
Sheriff for assistance. This act alone is insufficient for the
injunction sought against these defendants, and the denial of
injunctive relief as to the Hinds and Rankin County Defendants is
thus affirmed.
II
With respect to the March 18, 2005 order, the denial of
injunctive relief was not explicit and the appellants challenge our
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we find that this order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Copiah County Defendants
dismissing the claims of the convicted plaintiffs denied “all
3
relief,” and thus necessarily rejected the convicted plaintiffs’
claim for an injunction. As such this court has jurisdiction to
consider the convicted plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of
injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The district court properly rejected the convicted plaintiffs’
§ 1983 claims seeking injunctive relief against the Copiah County
Defendants based on the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). The convicted plaintiffs contend that because they each
were only fined, and not confined, as a result of their
convictions, neither habeas nor any other procedural avenue is
available for challenging their convictions; and consequently their
situation presents an exception to the Heck doctrine. This
contention is barred by Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th
Cir. 2000) (rejecting the view that Heck should be relaxed for
“plaintiffs who have no procedural vehicle to challenge their
conviction.”). Because the plaintiffs failed to raise any
challenge to the convictions arising from the June 4 roadblock, the
Heck requirement has not been satisfied and the convicted
plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, including their claim for injunctive
relief, cannot proceed. Thus the district court was not in error
in dismissing the convicted plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive
relief.
For these reasons the district court’s orders of March 15 and
18, 2005, denying injunctive relief, are
AFFIRMED.
4