United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10904

Jason Levon Simmons, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Ray Jackson, Attorney; Texas Medical Board; Bianca 

San Miguel, as executrix of the Estate of Oscar San Miguel, substituted in 

place and stead of Oscar San Miguel, deceased; Barbara Jordan,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-1700

Before Elrod, Southwick, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

After a series of amended complaints, Jason Simmons alleged claims 

of RICO conspiracy, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract against his 

former attorneys Ray Jackson and Oscar San Miguel, the Texas Medical 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 27, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2021
No. 19-10904

2

Board, Methodist Hospital of Dallas, and Barbara Jordan, an attorney for the 

hospital. The district court dismissed the claims against Jackson, the Board, 

the Hospital, and Jordan. The district court then granted summary judgment 

to San Miguel and entered final judgment as to all parties and claims. 

Simmons timely appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e).

Simmons asserts seven challenges to the district court’s orders—

none of his challenges has merit. First, Simmons contends that the district 

court failed to liberally construe his pro se pleadings, but there is no support 

in the record for this conclusory assertion. See Coleman v. United States, 912 

F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Simmons’s motion to file a post-judgment affidavit merely to correct a 

clerical error. See Russ v. Int’l Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 1991).

Third, the district court implicitly denied Simmons’s Rule 60(b) 

motion when it said that it had already denied the motion, declared that 

“there is no Rule 60 motion pending,” and denied Simmons’s motion for a 

hearing on the issue. On appeal, Simmons has not shown that the denial was 

“unwarranted,” let alone “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of 

discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A 

Jan. 1981).

Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2021
No. 19-10904

3

Fourth, the district court correctly dismissed Simmons’s complaints 

against the Hospital and Jackson under Rule 12(b)(6).1

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6); Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar, 975 F.3d 523, 528 (5th Cir. 2020).

Fifth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying 

discovery pending resolution of Jordan’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 

See Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987).

Sixth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Simmons’s motion to file a fifth amended complaint alleging a new 

transaction. See Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 

F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014).

Finally, Rule 52(b) motions are meant to “correct manifest errors of 

law or fact.” Fontenot v. Mesa Petrol. Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); 

accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by 

declining to amend its judgment with additional factual findings. See

Fontenot, 791 F.2d at 1219. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 A prior motions panel of this court dismissed both the Hospital and Jackson from 

this appeal. To the extent that the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of the Hospital 

and Jackson are now before us, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2021