Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcelino MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU LUEVA; FNU Gonzalez; John Doe, Parole Officer; FNU Garrison; FNU Ortiz; FNU Garcia; FNU Anderson; Bill Cheatham, SCC; Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; John Doe, SCC; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-10762
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 22, 2003.
    Marcelino Martinez, pro se, Kenedy, TX, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Marcelino Martinez, Texas prisoner # 526628, appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for a preliminary injunction and for appointment of counsel. Martinez wishes to be placed in “superseg[regation] protective custody” pending a disposition of his civil rights claims by the district court.

Martinez’s civil rights claims against the TDCJ-ID Connally Unit personnel have been dismissed by the Western District of Texas for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, see Martinez v. Ambriz, No. SA-03-CA-319-EP, 2003 WL 21305472 (W-D.Tex. May 21, 2003), and, although his claims against the TDCJ-ID Smith Unit personnel are still pending before the Northern District, Martinez is no longer housed at the Smith Unit and, thus, he is in no danger from the personnel or inmates at the Smith Unit. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See White v. Carlucci 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir.1989); Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n. 15 (5th Cir.2001).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel, and his motion to this court for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212, 213 (5th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.