Labry v. Mamoulides, et al

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30926
Summary Calendar
GEORGE LABRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN MAMOULIDES; PAUL CONNICK, JR.; KERNAN A. HAND; PHILIP
RAMONE; HARRY LEE; HARRY CONNICK, SR.; PEGGY MARTIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-3664-L
--------------------
February 1, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
George Labry, Louisiana inmate #78769, proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Labry contends that the defendants
were not entitled to immunity.
Labry has abandoned any appeal of the district court’s
dismissal of his habeas claims for failure to exhaust and the
dismissal of his claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994), by failing to assert these issues in this court.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not asserted on appeal are abandoned).
We review the district court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for an abuse
of discretion. Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1041 (1999). The district court
concluded that Judge Hand was entitled to absolute immunity because
the actions of which Labry complained were taken in Judge Hand’s
judicial capacity and were within his jurisdiction. Labry does not
challenge this reasoning and any such challenge would be frivolous.
See Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir. 1996) (judges
are absolutely immune from damages for acts performed in the
exercise of judicial functions).
“Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for those activities
`intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process.’” Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir.
1999)(quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). “A
prosecutor’s absolute immunity will not be stripped because of
action that `was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess
of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when
he has acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Kerr,
171 F.3d at 337 (citation omitted).
Labry’s allegations against the district attorney defendants
concerned Labry’s indictment and prosecution on murder and
aggravated rape charges. These actions involve the initiation and
prosecution of criminal charges and are shielded by immunity. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3
id. Further, Labry’s claims against the Orleans Parish District
Attorney concerned his convictions for aggravated rape. Labry has
not shown that his conviction has been reversed or that the
judgment has been called into question. His claims are thus barred
under Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway, 654 F.2d 1028,
10131 (5th Cir. 1981) (dismissal may be affirmed on alternative
grounds).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --