Robinson v. Jones
| Decision Date | 27 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1432,97-1432 |
| Citation | 142 F.3d 905 |
| Parties | Olee Wonzo ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark C. JONES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Olee Wonzo Robinson (briefed), Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
William L. Woodard (briefed), Office of the U.S. Atty., Detroit, MI, for Mark C. Jones.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
Olee Wonzo Robinson (Robinson), a pro se federal prisoner, appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his complaint filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary damages, Robinson sued Mark C. Jones (Jones), the Assistant United States Attorney who successfully prosecuted him for several drug related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute cocaine, money laundering, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, and drug related homicide. This court affirmed Robinson's criminal convictions on appeal. United States v. Robinson, 96 F.3d 1449 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1459, 137 L.Ed.2d 563 (1997). In his Bivens complaint, Robinson sued Jones in his individual capacity and set forth thirteen claims. In claims one through twelve, Robinson alleged that Jones violated his constitutional rights by knowingly coercing and eliciting false testimony against him, making false statements to the press, and threatening defense witnesses to keep them from testifying. In claim thirteen, Robinson alleged that Jones violated his Fourth Amendment rights by coercing two government witnesses to give false testimony that was used as a basis for obtaining search warrants executed at Robinson's home and place of business.
Jones moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The district court granted the motion to dismiss Robinson's complaint, and Robinson appeals. In his timely appeal, Robinson challenges the district court's judgment dismissing claim thirteen of the complaint.
Initially, we note that Robinson does not reassert on appeal claims one through twelve as set forth in his complaint. Issues which were raised in the district court, yet not raised on appeal, are considered abandoned and not reviewable on appeal. Enertech Elec., Inc. v. Mahoning County Comm'rs, 85 F.3d 257, 259 (6th Cir.1996).
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A v. Steven Warshak, No. 08-3997
...itself a violation of the Fourth Amendment. He does not renew that argument on appeal, and it is therefore waived. See Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906 (6th Cir. 1998) ("Issues which were raised in the district court, yet not raised on appeal, are considered abandoned and not reviewable......
-
Youghiogheny and Ohio v. Milliken
...that arguments not raised in the proponent's opening brief on appeal are generally considered abandoned. See, e.g., Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that the court of appeals would not consider twelve of thirteen Bivensclaims asserted by the plaintiff because he ......
-
Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents
...original). The litigation bar of Heck applies with equal force to a civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens. Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906-07 (6th Cir.1998). This Court applies a de novo standard of review to the district court's determination that Plaintiffs' Bivens claims ar......
-
Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center
...Title VII retaliation claim and his claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. These claims are therefore waived. See Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906 (6th Cir.1998) (issues raised before district court but not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned and are not reviewable on 2. In suppo......