The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21154
Summary Calendar
ROBERT JAMES BARNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE;
ELIZABETH HUERTA; BOB ROBERTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-96-CV-3884
--------------------
September 4, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert James Barnett, Texas prisoner # 314835, appeals the
district court’s summary judgment granted in favor of the
defendants, Elizabeth Huerta and Bob Roberts, on his claims
relating to the legality of his arrest, confinement, and
prosecution for forgery. Barnett contends that the agents lacked
probable cause to effectuate his arrest and that they were
therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. The statements of
Barnett’s coconspirators were sufficiently detailed,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
corroborated each other, and included statements against penal
interest, supporting a finding that the statements were reliable
and establishing probable cause to seek an arrest warrant. See
United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 331 (5th Cir. 1998)
(direct criminal appeal); United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271,
275 (5th Cir. 1994)(same); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d
317, 323 (5th Cir. 1992)(same). The fact that one coconspirator
recanted her story after Barnett’s arrest does not affect the
finding of probable cause because the relevant time frame is the
time of arrest. Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d 1373, 1381 (5th
Cir. 1994). Barnett also contends for the first time before this
court that Huerta lied in her criminal complaint about finding
counterfeit money in Barnett’s possession. New allegations
cannot be raised and will not be addressed for the first time on
appeal. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000). The agents
had probable cause to effectuate Barnett’s arrest. Because
probable cause existed to support the arrest, Barnett’s state-law
claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious
prosecution must fail. See Smith v. Gonzales, 670 F.2d 522, 526
(5th Cir. 1982); Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir.),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 21, 2001)(No. 00-1743).
Barnett contends that the district court improperly failed
to address his assertions that his personal property was
improperly seized pursuant to his arrest and has not been
returned to him despite the dismissal of the charges. To the
2
extent that these claims were within the scope of the remand
order of this court, they must fail. When a plaintiff alleges
that he has been deprived of his property, without due process of
law, by the negligence or intentional actions of a state officer
that are “random and unauthorized,” a postdeprivation tort cause
of action in state law is sufficient to satisfy the requirements
of due process. Sheppard v. La. Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763
(5th Cir. 1989)(quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533
(1984). Texas has adequate postdeprivation remedies for the
confiscation of property. See Cathey v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162,
164 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Barnett has failed to show that
he can raise his claims of the alleged unauthorized seizure of
his personal property.
Barnett contends that the district court erred in denying
his requests for discovery. Because qualified immunity is a
defense from both liability and suit, the agents were entitled to
a ruling on their defense before answering discovery requests.
See Heitschmidt v. City of Houston, 161 F.3d 834, 840 (5th Cir.
1998). Barnett also contends that he was denied his right to a
jury trial, which he requested. The district court was entitled
to grant summary judgment upon a showing of the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Barnett
therefore was not entitled to a jury trial. The district court’s
judgment in favor of the defendants is therefore AFFIRMED.
3