Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40610/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry S. Andrews
Appellee
Jimmy O. Bowman
Appellee
Sherman Cooper
Appellee
James Danhiem
Appellee
William R. Motal
Appellee
Kendell L. Murphy
Appellant
William R. Suter
Appellee
Rick Thaler
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40610

Summary Calendar

KENDELL L. MURPHY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BARRY S. ANDREWS; SHERMAN COOPER; JAMES DANHIEM; JIMMY O. 

BOWMAN; WILLIAM R. MOTAL; RICK THALER; WILLIAM R. SUTER,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CV-508

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kendell L. Murphy, Texas prisoner # 1372192, appeals the dismissal of 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against remaining defendants Barry S. Andrews and 

Sherman Cooper following a jury trial. He asserts that (1) Andrews, Cooper, 

and other defense witnesses perjured themselves and misled the jury; (2) the 

district court improperly prevented him from cross-examining Andrews and 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 13-40610 Document: 00513107164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-40610

2

Cooper regarding inconsistent statements that they made in their affidavits; 

(3) the State improperly prevented him from obtaining sworn declarations from 

unidentified individuals and from calling unspecified witnesses at trial by 

making them unavailable; (4) the district court improperly denied him an 

opportunity to thoroughly cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses; (5) the 

activity logs to which the State’s attorney referred during his crossexamination of Murphy were fabricated, and Murphy had not been previously 

notified of the defense’s intent to rely upon them; (6) the cell door photograph 

to which the State’s attorney attempted to refer during cross-examination of 

witness Bradius Davis was prejudicial and irrelevant; and (7) Davis and 

Murphy were purposely transported in the same van so that aspersions could 

be cast on Davis’s credibility by suggesting that Davis and Murphy fabricated 

Davis’s testimony. 

Through his perjury argument, Murphy seeks, at base, for this court to 

overturn the jury’s credibility determinations; however, such determinations 

are the jury’s province, not ours. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 (5th 

Cir. 1992). Murphy’s remaining arguments, which are devoid of citations to 

the record or supporting case law, are insufficient. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that even pro se 

litigants must brief arguments to preserve them). In any event, they are not 

supported by the record.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Murphy’s 

motion for appointment of counsel.

Case: 13-40610 Document: 00513107164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015