Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0410-01.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

Emerico GARCIA; Gloria Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. A CONTRERAS, Officer (# 172); Mendoza, Detective; Longoria, Officer; Garcia, Officer (# 077); Ruiz, Officer (# 710); Garcia, Officer (# 708); Kirkpatrick, Officer (# 712); McGee, Officer (# 711); Gonzalez, Officer (# 071); Cantu, Officer; Cisneros, Officer; Kleberg County Sheriff Department; the City of Kingsville; Kleberg County, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-41182
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 30, 2010.
    Gloria Garcia, Kingsville, TX, pro se.
    Emerico Garcia, Kingsville, TX, pro se.
    James F. McKibben, Jr., Liza Marie Aguilar, Hermansen, McKibben, Woolsey & Villarreal, L.L.P., Phillip A. McKinney, P. McKinney & Associates, P.C., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, Emerieo and Gloria Garcia appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Liberally construing their brief, the Garcias contend that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because they: had mailed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion; and, were entitled to the services of an interpreter. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)) (pro se briefs should be liberally construed).

In district court, the Garcias contended defendants entered their home without consent or a warrant, assaulted them, and shocked them with a Tazer gun. The district court dismissed defendants associated with Kleberg County based on the Garcias’ failure to effectuate timely service of process. For the remaining defendants, the district court granted summary judgment, ruling: none of the individual defendants violated the Garcias’ constitutional rights; and, the Garcias failed to allege a City of Kingsville policy that resulted in a violation of their rights. (On appeal, the Garci-as do not challenge the rationale behind the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. They also have failed to brief any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of some defendants for failure to serve. Because the Garcias do not raise such challenges on appeal, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).)

The Garcias’ motion for additional time to respond to the summary-judgment motion was not filed until the day final judgment was entered. Therefore, the district court considered the motion a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and denied it. Because the Garcias’ motion failed to “ ‘specifically explain ... how a continuance would enable’ ” them to present evidence of a genuine issue of material fact, they were not entitled to a continuance. See Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 719 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting Liquid Drill, Inc. v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc., 48 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1995)). Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the postjudgment motion. See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir.1997).

The Garcias also appear to contend that they were entitled to the services of an interpreter. The record belies any assertion that the Garcias did not understand English or that a lack of understanding of the English language precluded them from participating in the legal proceedings. To the extent they contend their ignorance of the law and court procedures entitled them to the assistance of counsel, they have failed to show that exceptional circumstances warranted such an appointment in a civil proceeding. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5tii 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 5tm Cir. R. 47.5.4.