* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10390

Summary Calendar

WARWICK PLAYER

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OFFICER LESLIE REESE

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-1918

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

WarwickPlayer,Texas prisoner # 07065669, proceeding pro se, appeals an

adverse jury verdict, which resulted in the dismissal of Player’s civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Player’s motion to file a supplemental brief is

GRANTED.)

Player asserts his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing

to: (1) object during jury selection; (2) request a jury shuffle; and (3) inform the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 24, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10390

2

jury that his drug charge was dismissed. This contention is without merit

because the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not apply

in a civil context. Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237

(5th Cir. 1986). 

Player also contends the jury was selected unconstitutionally because

jurors were not shuffled and there were no minorities on the jury. Because

Player failed to object to the selection of the jury in the district court before the

dismissal of the venire, the claim is untimely and must be rejected. See Garcia

v. Excel Corp., 102 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Player asserts the district court erred in admitting evidence of a prior

conviction that did not exist. However, he does not point to a particular

conviction or how it was introduced. We presume he refers to the reading of his

signed judicial confession, wherein he admitted to possessing drugs on 6

September 2003. The events of 6 September 2003, were the subject of the

instant § 1983 action (Player claims that, on that day, he was arrested without

probable cause and excessive force was used). Player never objected to the

reading of his confession at trial.

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See

Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 957 (5th Cir. 2001). “An erroneous evidentiary

ruling merits the reversal of judgment only where the challenged ruling affects

a substantial right of a party.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks

omitted). Moreover, if the complaining party does not properly object at trial to

the admission of the evidence, we review the evidentiary challenge on appeal

only for plain error. See Fed. R. Evid 103(d); United States ex rel. Small Bus.

Admin. v. Commercial Tech., Inc., 354 F.3d 378, 389. Under this standard, we

generally reverse only for “obvious and substantial errors that seriously affect

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Reddin v.

Robinson Prop. Group, Ltd. P’ship, 239 F.3d 756, 760 (5th Cir. 2001).
No. 07-10390

3

The record reveals the defense never introduced evidence of a conviction

in connection with the facts surrounding the instant action. The signed judicial

confession was read aloud to the jury during the cross-examination of Player,

after he had testified on direct examination that he was not in possession of

drugs on 6 September 2003. The judicial confession was admissible to impeach

that testimony. See FED. R. EVID. 607; United States v. Opager, 589 F.2d 799,

801-02 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which bars

the introduction of extrinsic evidence of specific conduct to attack or support a

witness’ character for truthfulness, is “inapplicable in determining the

admissibility of relevant evidence introduced to contradict a witness’s testimony

as to a material issue”). In sum, there was no reversible plain error.

Player maintains the defense mischaracterized certain facts. This issue

is inadequately briefed and is therefore waived. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.