Penley v. Collin County Texas, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40565
Paul Christopher Penley
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
Collin County, Texas; Charles Sandoval, Judge of the 380th
District Court of Collin County, Texas; Tom O’Connell; Lisa
Renfro, Court Reporter of the 380th District Court; John Roach,
District Attorney of Collin County, Texas
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Christopher Penley, currently serving a fourteen-year
prison sentence for involuntary manslaughter, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several
officials of Collin County, Texas. Penley claims that evidence of
his crime was destroyed, which prevents him from availing himself
of the opportunity for DNA testing provided by Texas law. We
review the district court’s dismissal
de novo, applying the same

-- 1 of 3 --

1
See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2003).
2512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2
standard used for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
dismissals.1
Penley seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $ 2 million
for the alleged improper destruction of blood evidence that was
used to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. The district
court dismissed Penley’s claims on several grounds: lack of
standing, judicial immunity (as applied to Charles Sandoval, Judge
of the 380th District Court of Collin County, Texas), absolute
immunity (as applied to John Roach, current district attorney of
Collin County, Texas, and Tom O’Connell, former district attorney
of Collin County, Texas), qualified immunity (as applied to Lisa
Renfro, court reporter of the 380th District Court of Collin
County, Texas), and
Heck v. Humphrey.2
Heck bars all of Penley’s claims. To the extent that the
district court were to award Penley damages on his claim regarding
the destruction of evidence and the loss of the opportunity for DNA
testing, the validity of his conviction would be implicitly
questioned. Under
Heck, Penley’s claim is not actionable because
he has not shown that his conviction has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, invalidated by other state
means, or called into question by the issuance of a federal habeas

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
3
writ.3 Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Penley’s §
1983 claims is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --