Hallman v. Steve Gordon and Assoc Attorne, et al

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10906
Summary Calendar

Robert F. Hallman,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Steve Gordon and Associates Attorneys and
Counselors at Law; Leticia Martinez; Honorable Judge
Elizabeth Beach,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CV-408

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robert F. Hallman, Texas prisoner # 2224866, filed this pro se action
asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging that a trial judge, prosecutors, his
own defense attorneys, a sheriff, detectives, and private citizens violated his

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10906 Document: 00515577606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2020

No. 19-10906
2
constitutional rights by conspiring to subject him to criminal detention and
prosecution. The district court reviewed his complaint, his amended
complaint, and his other submissions, and sua sponte dismissed his claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b). Hallman now appeals.
Although Hallman argues that the trial judge and prosecutors
conspired against him, the district court correctly determined that he cannot
overcome the applicable judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity. See
Ballard v. Wall ̧413 F.3d 510, 515 (5th Cir. 2005) (judicial immunity);
Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir. 1985) (judicial immunity);
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991) (prosecutorial immunity). As for
Hallman’s § 1983 claims, the district court did not err in its dismissal for
failure to state a claim against his attorneys, see Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214,
216-17 (5th Cir. 1993), the sheriff, see Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective and
Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 435 (5th Cir. 2008), the detectives, see Castro
Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2001), and the remaining
defendants, see Ballard, 413 F.3d at 518; Priester v. Lowndes Cty., 354 F.3d 414,
420 (5th Cir. 2004). We are also unpersuaded that the district court erred by
not providing Hallman with additional opportunities to develop his claims.
Hallman fails to demonstrate that he had not pleaded his best case and fails
to identify what facts he would have added or how he would have overcome
the deficiencies found in his claims. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-
68 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, Hallman fails to demonstrate the existence of any
exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See
Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty., 929 F.2d 1078. Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED, and Hallman’s motion for appointment
of counsel is DENIED.
Case: 19-10906 Document: 00515577606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2020