Opinion
No. 07-20345.
July 10, 2008.
Steve W. Berman, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Hagens Berman, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Deborah J. Jeffrey, Zuckerman Spaeder, Washington, DC, Sarafa Law LLC, New York, NY, John Townsend Rich, John Moustakas, Goodwin Procter, Washington, DC, Barbara L. Hachenburg, Germer, Bernsen Gertz, Houston, TX, Anand S. Raman, Robert Stephen Bennett, Carl S. Rauh, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, Washington, DC, Charles W. Schwartz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, Houston, TX, T. Ray Guy, Weil, Gotshal Manges, Dallas, TX, Mark S. Whitburn, Michael Sean Royall, James C. Ho, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Dallas, TX, Theodore B. Olson, Matthew Dempsey McGill, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Washington, DC, Michael Eugene McCue, Charles W. Blau, Brian Wesley Portugal, Anthony P. Daddino, Meadows, Collier, Reed, Cousins Blau, Dallas, TX, Elissa J. Preheim, Arnold Porter, Washington, DC, Clayton C. Cannon, Henry James Fasthoff, IV, Stumpf Craddock Massey Farrimond, Houston, TX, Casey T. Wallace, Lawrence David Finder, Kent Geoffrey Rutter, Haynes Boone, Houston, TX, Barbara L. Herwig, Howard S. Scher, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:05-CV-3646-LHR.
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Edwin P. Wilson, a former Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") operative, brought the instant damages suit, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, against eight Defendants-Appellees — seven former Department of Justice lawyers and one former CIA official. The Defendants-Appellees were directly and indirectly involved in four criminal cases (in the District of Columbia, Texas, Virginia, and New York) and one Tax Court/bankruptcy proceeding filed against Wilson in the 1980s. In a well-reasoned and thorough opinion, the district court dismissed Wilson's complaint, holding, inter alia, that (1) his claims related to the Tax Court case were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and (2) all of the Defendants-Appellees were absolutely immune from suit for their conduct related to the four criminal prosecutions of Wilson.
403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
In February 2006, Wilson dropped his claim against Stanley Sporkin, who had been the General Counsel of the CIA.
On appeal, Wilson has dropped his Bivens claims against four of the eight Defendants-Appellees, namely Daniel K. Hedges, James L. Powers, Theodore S. Greenberg, and Charles A. Briggs. He has not abandoned his Bivens claims against Defendants-Appellees Lawrence Barcella, Mark M. Richard, Delwen Lowell Jensen, and Stephen Trott, but only challenges two aspects of the district court's holding, insisting that the district court erred in concluding that (1) his claims related to the Tax Court proceeding are time barred and (2) Barcella, Richard, Jensen, and Trott are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for their decisions to suppress allegedly exculpatory materials related to Wilson's appeal of his Texas criminal conviction and Tax Court case.
After careful review of the record, applicable law as set forth in the briefs of both parties, their counsels' representations to us at oral argument, and our own independent research, we are satisfied that the district court correctly dismissed Wilson's action in its entirety. We hold that Wilson's Bivens claims related to his Tax Court proceeding are barred by Texas's statute of limitations. Although we pre-termit consideration of the whether the Defendants-Appellees are protected by absolute immunity for their conduct related to the Tax Court case because this claim is time barred, we hold that all Defendants-Appellees are immunized for their conduct related to the appeal of Wilson's Texas conviction.
Although the district court applied the statute of limitations of the District of Columbia (the locus of the alleged misconduct in the Tax Court proceeding), Greenberg convincingly argues in his brief that, following our decision in Jones v. Bales, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973), the statute of limitations of the state of Texas (the forum of Wilson's action) should apply. Wilson expressly and unequivocally conceded this point at oral argument. We therefore apply the statute of limitations of Texas.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.