674 Fed.Appx. 432 (5th Cir. 2017), 15-40075, Garcia v. Currie

Docket Nº:15-40075
Citation:674 Fed.Appx. 432
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:PEDRO TIEMPO GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SENIOR WARDEN G. CURRIE; ASSISTANT WARDEN M. BARBER; CAPTAIN B. RODRIGUEZ; LIEUTENANT J. MIRELES; WARDEN C. E. MONROE, Defendants-Appellees
Attorney:PEDRO TIEMPO GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Beeville, TX. For SENIOR WARDEN G. CURRIE, ASSISTANT WARDEN M. BARBER, CAPTAIN B. RODRIGUEZ, LIEUTENANT J. MIRELES, WARDEN C. E. MONROE, Defendants - Appellees: Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney Gener...
Judge Panel:Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 30, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 432

674 Fed.Appx. 432 (5th Cir. 2017)

PEDRO TIEMPO GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SENIOR WARDEN G. CURRIE; ASSISTANT WARDEN M. BARBER; CAPTAIN B. RODRIGUEZ; LIEUTENANT J. MIRELES; WARDEN C. E. MONROE, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-40075

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

January 30, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. USDC No. 2:13-CV-226.

PEDRO TIEMPO GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Beeville, TX.

For SENIOR WARDEN G. CURRIE, ASSISTANT WARDEN M. BARBER, CAPTAIN B. RODRIGUEZ, LIEUTENANT J. MIRELES, WARDEN C. E. MONROE, Defendants - Appellees: Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX.

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 433

PER CURIAM:[*]

Pedro Tiempo Garcia, Texas prisoner # 1060889, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials alleging that his civil rights had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Garcia timely appealed.

Garcia challenges the district court's denial of his request for the appointment of counsel. The appointment of counsel in a civil rights action is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Having reviewed the relevant factors and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia's motion. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987); Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213.

The district court dismissed Garcia's claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Garcia does not challenge this particular ruling in his opening brief, he has abandoned any challenge to the ruling on appeal. See

Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Following a contact visitation during which officers observed Garcia orally ingesting small objects passed to him from his visitor, Garcia was placed in dry cell isolation. He argues that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP