Enriquez v. Coffield ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20542
(Summary Calendar)
AMADO A. SOTO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
JUAN ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
H.H. COFFIELD, Chairman,Texas Board of
Corrections at Rockdale, Texas; ET AL.,
Defendants,
W.J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections;
LESTER BEAIRD, Warden, Darrington Unit, Rosharon, Texas;
CHARLES AVERY, JR.; H.H. COFFIELD, Former Chairman of the
Texas Board of Corrections; JAMES MARVIN WINDHAM, Former
Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections; RAYMOND
PROCUNIER, Former Chairman of the Texas Department of
Corrections; O.O. MCCOTTER, Former Director of the Texas
Department of Corrections; JAMES A. COLLINS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;
ALAN MITCHELL, Corrections Officer; JACK B. PURSLEY, Corrections
Officer; JAMES MICHAEL WILSON; B.S. HARTNET; S.O. WOODS,
Director of the Bureau of Classification,
Defendants-Appellees.
----------------------------------------------------------
LUCIEN MARSHALL PHILLIPS; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
JUAN RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W.J. ESTELLE, JR., Individually and in his
official capacity as director of the Texas
Department of Corrections; ET AL.,
Defendants,
LESTER H. BEAIRD, Individually and in his official
capacity as Warden of the Darrington Prison,
Defendant-Appellee.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
JUAN RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM J. ESTELLE, JR, Director of Texas Department of
Corrections; JAMES MARVIN WINDHAM, Chairman of the Texas
Board of Corrections, Individually and in his official
capacity; H.H. COFFIELD, Former Chairman of the Texas Board
of Corrections, Individually and in his official capacity;
LESTER H. BEAIRD, Former Warden of the Darrington Unit,
Individually and in his official capacity; ALLEN MITCHELL,
Former Assistant Warden of the Darrington Unit, Individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC Nos. H-73-CV-900, H-73-CV-1004, & H-73-CV-1374
--------------------
June 12, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Rudolfo Enriquez, Texas state
prisoner # 227122, appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the defendants in three consolidated civil
rights cases. He argues that the district court erred by granting
*
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.
2
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without notice to
Enriquez on his claims of racial discrimination, denial of access
to the courts, and retaliation, and by determining that the claims
Enriquez added in his amended complaint in 1992, which had not been
asserted in his original complaint in 1973, were barred by Texas’s
two-year statute of limitations.
“This court has strictly enforced the ten day notice
requirement of Rule 56(c).” Powell v. United States, 849 F.2d
1576, 1579 (5th Cir. 1988) (footnote omitted). Even when there is
no notice to the nonmovant, however, summary judgment will be
considered harmless if the nonmovant has no additional evidence or
if all of the nonmovant’s additional evidence is reviewed by the
appellate court and none of the evidence presents a genuine issue
of material fact. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson
Dev. Corp., 992 F.2d 1398, 1403 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). As Enriquez
has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact with regard to his claims of retaliation and denial
of access to the courts, the district court’s entry of summary
judgment without notice to Enriquez on these issues constituted
harmless error. See id. Further, the district court correctly
determined that Enriquez’s post-1973 claims were barred by Texas’s
two-year statute of limitations. See Rodriguez v. Holmes, 963 F.2d
799, 803 (5th Cir. 1992).
The district court’s entry of summary judgment on Enriquez’s
racial discrimination claims without notice to Enriquez did not
constitute harmless error, however. The district court’s grant of
3
summary judgment to the defendants on Enriquez’s racial
discrimination claims is therefore REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.
All outstanding motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; MOTIONS DENIED.
4