Lawrence v. Richardson ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _______________________
    No. 00-60040
    Summary Calendar
    Civil Docket # 3:99-CV-118
    _______________________
    LARRY WESLEY LAWRENCE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON; ROGER THOMAS; MIKE LANG;
    JERRY McNEECE; DELMAR W. BASS, SR.; GEORGE GRANT;
    BILL PATRICK; MICHAEL CUMMINS; JACK MAGEE; JOHN DOES;
    SURETY BONDING CO.; CASSANDRA HUGHES; DEBBIE GRAHAM,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    _________________________________________________________________
    February 1, 2001
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*
    Larry   Wesley   Lawrence,   Mississippi   prisoner   #46006,
    appeals from the entry of final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict
    for the defendants in his civil rights claim filed under 42 U.S.C.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    § 1983.
    On appeal, he asserts that the district court erred by
    denying him court-appointed counsel; by denying his request for the
    issuance of subpoenas to certain free-world witnesses; and by
    failing to enforce its discovery order for certain records from the
    Scott County detention center.          Finding no reversible error, we
    affirm.
    The   court   carefully       considered   the   standards   for
    appointment of counsel in pro se civil rights cases and did not
    abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motion.              Ulmer v.
    Chancellor, 
    691 F.2d 208
    , 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
    The court made no mistake in refusing to issue subpoenas
    for which Lawrence did not pay the witness fee.       The law affords no
    subsidy to I.F.P. plaintiffs for this expense.
    Finally, with regard to the defendants’ alleged failure
    to produce documents, there is no docket entry reflecting that
    Lawrence ever filed a motion to compel, while there is a docket
    entry in which defendants certified their compliance with the order.
    If these matters were discussed before or during trial and are in
    the trial transcript, and if Lawrence felt that violation of
    discovery orders occurred and prejudiced his ability to try the
    case, he should have so stated in his requests for production of a
    trial transcript at the government’s expense.          Instead, he said
    nothing about this claim in his motions for a transcript to the
    2
    district court, to a single judge of this court, and to a 3-judge
    panel   on   reconsideration.         As       a   result,    there    is   no   record
    substantiating his claim.       Based on Lawrence’s continued lack of
    explanation about the relevance or prejudice relating to these
    documents in light of his specific claims, we will not at this late
    date reconsider the motion for a government-paid transcript and
    reject this point.
    For   these   reasons,    the         district    court    judgment     is
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-60040

Filed Date: 2/2/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021