Skinner v. Lee , 166 F. App'x 140 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT February 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30334
Summary Calendar
LAKYIA SKINNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRY LEE; et al.,
Defendants,
HARRY LEE; JAMES WINE; DAVID RODDY; MIKE FERRELL; SCOTT GUILLORY;
UNIDENTIFIED PARTY; JUANITA PAYTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:98-CV-1461-L)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lakyia Skinner, Louisiana prisoner number 405902, filed the
instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to seek redress for various
alleged acts that occurred in connection with his arrest and while
he was a pretrial detainee. Some claims and some defendants were
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
dismissed prior to trial, one defendant was dismissed during trial,
and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining
defendants. Skinner appeals, pro se, the denial of his Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
judgment. He also claims he received ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Skinner asserts that his Rule 59(e) motion should have been
granted to reverse a ruling dismissing defendant Payton. Skinner
has not shown an abuse of discretion in the motion’s being denied.
See S. Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611
(5th Cir. 1993). The evidence at trial showed that Payton did not
act with deliberate indifference to Skinner’s serious medical
needs; rather, it showed only that Skinner disagreed with the care
he was given, which is insufficient to raise a viable claim under
§ 1983. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997)
(“Disagreement with medical treatment does not state a claim for
Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs.”); see also Domino
v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.
2001) (noting the “extremely high standard” required to prove
deliberate indifference). This contention lacks merit.
Skinner also contends that his appointed counsel rendered
ineffective assistance during and after trial. As Skinner
concedes, this claim is unavailing; the right to effective
assistance of counsel does not apply in a civil action. Sanchez v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). To the
2
extent that Skinner requests we overrule this jurisprudence, this
request is denied. See United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 834 (1993).
AFFIRMED
3