Haynes v. USA

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10111
Conference Calendar
VINCENT LOUIS HAYNES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CV-1326-R
--------------------
June 14, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincent Haynes appeals the dismissal of his complaint, filed
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671
et seq., alleging claims of false arrest and false imprisonment
stemming from his arrest and conviction for cocaine possession
with the intent to distribute. Haynes argues that the district
court erred in dismissing the complaint because the court did not
apply state law to his claims and it did not instruct him, a pro
se litigant, to amend his complaint. He further argues that the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-10111
-2-
district court did not rule on his motion for preliminary injunction.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a
plaintiff’s case on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). See Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 601 (5th Cir.
1996).
Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. Because
resolution of this action would necessarily affect the validity
of Haynes' conviction and sentence, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994) mandates dismissal since no cause of action accrues
unless and until Haynes can show that his conviction has been
declared invalid.
Haynes’ argument that the district court erred in not
instructing him to amend his complaint is raised for the first
time on appeal, and, therefore, we do not consider it. See
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000). Haynes’ arguments
concerning the application of respondeat superior to his claims
are likewise not entertained, having also been raised for the
first time on appeal.
Haynes’ motion for preliminary injunction was made moot by
the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. See Louisiana
World Exposition, Inc., v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir.
1984). The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --