Full Opinion

Case: 25-30724 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED November 10, 2026 No. 25-30724 Thomas B. Plunkett, III Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Antonio Lashun Nolan, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Jared Buchanan, Officer, In His Individual Capacity; Zane Crittenden, Officer, In His Individual Capacity; Luke Price, Officer, In His Individual Capacity; Police Department of Minden; Jimbo Yocom, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:25-CV-1144 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Antonio Lashun Nolan appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY Nolan’s motions _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30724 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2026 No. 25-30724 seeking a limited remand for the purpose of clerical or administrative corrections under Rule 60(a) or direct correction of the record. Nolan’s substantial compliance with the magistrate judge’s order to amend his complaint did not preclude dismissal. By directing Nolan to answer specific questions, the magistrate judge effectively used a questionnaire, which is “a useful means by which the court can develop the factual basis for [a] complaint.” Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir. 1976). Mere compliance with a questionnaire, however, does not establish factual sufficiency. See id. Nor did the magistrate judge violate Nolan’s due- process rights by instructing him not to repeat allegations from his earlier pleadings. The report and recommendation, which the district court adopted, expressly considered those pleadings. Nolan also has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that the Heck favorable-termination rule bars his claims. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). We have explained that when an “unlawful-arrest claim plainly arises from the same facts as [a] resisting- arrest conviction,” permitting recovery under § 1983 “for unlawful arrest would necessarily imply that any conviction for resisting the arrest was invalid.” Johnson v. Thibodaux City, 887 F.3d 726, 732 (5th Cir. 2018). None of Nolan’s cited cases undermines that rule. Finally, Nolan has not explained how the classification of his case affected the screening of his complaint under § 1915(e)(2). We therefore see no basis for reversal or a limited remand to correct the alleged coding errors. Nolan has not demonstrated any substantive or procedural error in the district court’s dismissal of his claims. Any other challenge is forfeited. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Nolan’s motions concerning the caption and coding of his case are DENIED. 2