IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40608

DONG SHENG HUANG, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JALEA JOECHELLE HILL; KAREA MARIE WILLIAMS; MURPHY OIL 

USA, INCORPORATED; MICHAEL WAYNE KELEMEN; RICHARD 

DRICKS; CITY OF LA MARQUE; RANDALL ARAGON; CHRISTINA 

BALVANTIN; 409 TOWING & RECOVERY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-269

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On the evening of January 5, 2014, Appellant Don Sheng Huang cashed 

a lottery ticket at a gas station owned by Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (Murphy Oil),

in La Marque, Texas, purchased a new ticket, and won $5.00. He viewed the 

redemption receipt to confirm the winning amount and received his $5.00.

Huang then argued with the cashiers at the teller window, Jalea Hill 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

February 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40608 Document: 00515295829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2020
No. 18-40608

2

Karea Williams, over whether he could keep the player’s copy receipt for the 

$5 ticket. The argument escalated, Williams shut the station’s sliding window, 

and Huang called Murphy Oil customer service to complain. Huang did not 

leave, and the cashier called 911. Huang drove off, but then returned to the 

gas station to look for a receipt in the parking lot; he parked in front of the gas 

pump for about five minutes, then drove away. As Huang was leaving, Officer 

Michael Kelemen of the La Marque police department stopped him. Officer 

Kelemen questioned Huang, Hill, and Williams, and Officer Richard Dricks 

assisted during the investigation. Officer Kelemen then arrested Huang for 

criminal trespass, though Huang insisted during and after his arrest that Hill 

never asked him to leave. The Galveston County District Attorney pursued a 

case against Huang on the criminal trespass charge. Huang was acquitted

after a jury trial. 

Huang then filed this suit, pro se, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and Texas state 

law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The defendants 

included: (1) Murphy Oil; (2) Hill and Williams; (3) Officers Keleman and 

Dricks; (4) Randall Aragon, the police chief; (5) the City of La Marque, Texas;

(6) Christina Balvantin, a legal secretary for the Galveston County District 

Attorney’s office who was the affiant on the complaint and information filed by 

the district attorney’s office to charge Huang with criminal trespass; and (7) 

409 Towing & Recovery, the company that towed Huang’s car on the night of 

his arrest.

The district court dismissed Huang’s suit against Chief Aragon, Officers 

Kelemen and Dricks, the City, Balvantin, and 409 Towing and Recovery. The 

court concluded that (1) Officers Kelemen and Dricks were entitled to qualified 

immunity, and Huang’s claims against them were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); (2) Huang’s claim against 409 Towing & Recovery was 

 Case: 18-40608 Document: 00515295829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2020
No. 18-40608

3

frivolous; (3) Huang failed to state a claim against Balvantin, and his claim 

against her was frivolous; and (4) Huang failed to state a claim against the 

City and Chief Aragon, and his suit against them was frivolous. Huang’s 

remaining claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against 

Murphy Oil, Hill, and Williams proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of 

the defendants.

Huang raises several points of error on appeal. We will address each in 

turn.

First, Huang argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims 

against Chief Aragon, Officers Kelemen and Dricks, the City, Balvantin, and 

409 Towing and Recovery. We affirm those judgments for the reasons stated 

by that court.

Second, Huang argues that the district court erred in denying his 

pretrial motion for summary judgment against Murphy Oil, Hill, and Williams. 

We “will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment 

where on the basis of a subsequent full trial on the merits final judgment is 

entered adverse to the movant.” Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th 

Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted). Because Huang proceeded to trial against 

Murphy Oil, Hill, and Williams, and a final judgment was rendered in that 

case, the district court’s denial of Huang’s pretrial motion for summary 

judgment is not reviewable.

Third, Huang asserts that because of a multitude of errors1 the district 

court erred in denying his motion for a new trial against Murphy Oil, Hill, and 

1 Huang claims, among other things, that he had inadequate time to review the jury 

charge and research and formulate objections, instructions in the jury charge were 

misleading and incomplete, the jury was confused because he testified on April 12, 2018, but 

was not cross-examined until the next day, that he had insufficient time in which to question 

potential jurors during voir dire, that the district court erred in denying his motion for 

contempt against various witnesses, and that the district court made various incorrect 

evidentiary rulings.

 Case: 18-40608 Document: 00515295829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2020
No. 18-40608

4

Williams. We affirm the district court’s ruling. “Courts do not grant new trials 

unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or 

that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful 

error rests on the party seeking the new trial.” Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 

701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000). The responsibility of providing an adequate record on 

appeal falls to the party seeking review. FED. R. APP. PROC. 10. Here, the

record on appeal does not contain the full trial transcript. In fact, the only 

portion of the transcript in the record on appeal containing trial testimony is 

an excerpt from the cross-examination of Huang. The discussions in the 

hearing transcripts reveal that several witnesses testified at the trial, 

including Officer Kelemen, Hill, Williams, and the district attorney who 

prosecuted Huang’s criminal trespass case, among others. We have no record 

of their testimony. The district court stated repeatedly that “the record and 

the pleadings in this case speak for themselves” and the court explicitly 

“rel[ied] on the record for the basis for its ruling denying the motion for a new 

trial.” Having neglected to provide a complete record to this court, Huang has

precluded a thorough review of the entire trial proceedings and, therefore, we 

are unable to conclude “that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that 

substantial justice has not been done.” Streber, 221 F.3d at 736.

Finally, Huang argues the district court committed several errors in its 

handling of his case, including denying him e-filing privileges, denying him

leave to file a third amended complaint to add another party to the suit, 

denying his motion for sanctions based on opposing counsel’s alleged violation 

of a confidentiality order, admitting his medical records into evidence for 

impeachment purposes, denying his motion to stay the issuance of final 

judgment pending this appeal, denying his request to seal allegedly 

confidential documents attached to his first amended complaint and a 

summary of the confidential materials, and certifying that any appeal taken 

 Case: 18-40608 Document: 00515295829 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/03/2020
No. 18-40608

5

would not be in good faith and therefore denying him in forma pauperis status 

for the purposes of appeal. Huang also contends that the district court judge 

erred in refusing to recuse himself. We have reviewed these challenges to the 

extent the record is sufficient to do so, and we find no improper action on the 

part of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40608 Document: 00515295829 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/03/2020