IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40018

Summary Calendar

HAROLD V DAVIS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DOCTOR KEN KUYKENDALL;

CURTIS LAWSON; DAVID DIXON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-500

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Harold V. Davis, Texas prisoner # 1068730, appeals from a judgment

dismissing his civil rights complaint after a trial and jury verdict in favor of the

two remaining defendants. Davis asserted claims against Curtis Lawson, a

correctional officer, as a result of a 2002 use of force incident, and against David

Dixon, a sergeant, as a result of a 2003 use of force incident.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-40018 Document: 00511182423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 09-40018

On appeal, Davis maintains that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motions for appointment of counsel. The case concerned matters

that happened to Davis personally and were within his knowledge. Moreover,

his civil rights complaint essentially presented a use of excessive force claim

against each defendant, and it did not present complex or novel legal questions.

The record clearly demonstrates Davis’s ability to present his case. As such, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motions for

appointment of counsel. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).

Next, Davis asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying

him “needed full discovery,” including certain medical records and interviews

needed to investigate his case. He claims that he intended to use the additional

discovery for “impeachment” of the dismissal of his claim that he was denied

medical care and to demonstrate a conspiracy and a deliberate indifference to a

known risk of harm. Davis, however, fails to state how the additional medical

records and interviews would have changed the outcome of his use of excessive

force claims against Dixon and Lawson. Consequently, he has not shown any

prejudice, and he therefore has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in its discovery rulings. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417

(5th Cir. 1990).

In addition, Davis asserts that the district court abused its discretion by

denying him leave to amend his pleadings to add a failure to protect claim. He

did not seek leave to amend his pleadings to add such a claim until the last day

of trial and again in a post-judgment motion. His post-judgment motion also

demonstrates that his proposed failure to protect claim involved individuals

other than Dixon and Lawson. Under these circumstances, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for leave to amend his pleadings.

Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 394 F.3d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 2004).

Davis has failed to adequately brief any other issue. Although this court

applies less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties

2

Case: 09-40018 Document: 00511182423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 09-40018

represented by counsel and liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se

parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements

of FED. R. APP. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Rule

28(a)(9) requires that the brief contain an argument, with “contentions and the

reason for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on

which the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise statement of the

applicable standard of review.” See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993). Davis’s brief lists issues for appellate review other than the district

court’s denials of appointment of counsel, discovery, and leave to amend the

pleadings, but he fails to provide record citations, legal authority, and a coherent

argument for each issue. Therefore, he has abandoned these issues by failing to

brief them adequately.

Davis also seeks appointment of counsel on appeal. However, he has not

demonstrated exceptional circumstances or that appointment of counsel would

substantially assist the resolution of this appeal. Accordingly, we deny his

motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. See Santana v. Chandler, 961 F.2d

514, 515-16 (5th Cir. 1992).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. The motion

for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.

3

Case: 09-40018 Document: 00511182423 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2010