Opinion ID: 70996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Discovery Abuse

Text: Thunderhorse alleges that Defendants’ attorneys engaged in discovery abuse, such as failing to disclose documents and impeachment information, and informing Thunderhorse, just four days before trial, that Liles and O’Brien no longer worked for the TDCJ. According to Thunderhorse, “[t]hese tactics and elements of surpri[s]e etc. operated to cause Appellant, a disabled [Pro Se] litigant[,] extreme undue prejudice and constitutes misconduct by the [S]tate of Texas.” We review alleged discovery errors for an abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless the party alleging the error establishes that he was prejudiced by the error. See United States v. Garcia, 567 F.3d 721, 734 (5th Cir. 2009); Hastings v. North East Indep. Sch. Dist., 615 F.2d 628, 631 (5th Cir. 1980). We have already addressed the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion to subpoena Liles and O’Brien. Thunderhorse’s remaining allegations of misconduct also fail because he has not alleged that the magistrate judge made incorrect rulings or rulings that prejudiced him as a result of this alleged misconduct. Nor has he identified anything in the record showing that he objected to this conduct. Instead, his appellate papers focus exclusively on the “misconduct by the [S]tate of Texas.” As such, these claims are not properly before the court as there are no decisions by the magistrate judge to review. See Fagot Rodriguez v. Republic of Costa Rica, 297 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2002) (finding no abuse of discretion where the plaintiffs did not object to the alleged discovery abuses). F. Recognition of Native Americans as a Racial Category Thunderhorse complains about the TDCJ’s method for categorizing its inmates as either “White,” “Black,” “Hispanic,” or “Other.” According to 12 Case: 08-40821 Document: 00511023468 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 No. 08-40821 Thunderhorse, categorizing him as “Other” instead of “Native American” violates his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of “any legitimate rehabilitative, cultural programs, services and activities that could, should or would be available if such a category existed.” Once again, Thunderhorse has not pointed to any evidence to support this supposition. Nor have we found any in the appellate record. To the contrary, the Regional Director of the TDCJ testified that there are no benefits attached with these racial classifications. Hence, we find no clear error in the magistrate judge’s decision to credit this uncontroverted testimony and to dismiss this claim. G. Other Claims Thunderhorse’s remaining claims lack merit. First, he argues that the TDCJ favors white supremacist and multi-denominational faiths over traditionalist Native American Shamanism because the TDCJ does not have a “faith code” for Native American Shamanism. This argument overlooks the fact that he prevailed on this very issue before the magistrate judge who ordered that “Native American shamanism should be recognized as a legitimate faith, with its own faith code . . . .” Indeed, his brief recognizes that the magistrate judge’s decision “give[s] Appellant the right to be recognized and categorized as a Native American Shaman with its own sub-code, with a choice of holy days and with special meals.” Second, Thunderhorse complains about the magistrate judge’s ruling that he may have a ceremonial pipe, drum, clay flute, and medicine bundle when he is released from administrative segregation. He argues that this ruling creates an incentive for the TDCJ to keep him in administrative segregation for as long as possible. This argument is entirely speculative and not ripe. Third, during this appeal, Thunderhorse filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief, which we granted. In it, he contends that the TDCJ discriminates against his religion because he cannot obtain special foods for his 13 Case: 08-40821 Document: 00511023468 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 No. 08-40821 holy days while Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic prisoners in administrative segregation can. The magistrate judge ruled on this matter in her Order Denying Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Enforcement, dated July 21, 2009. She found that the religious meals that the Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic prisoners receive consist of the same foods provided to all inmates. She ruled that, consistent with the TDCJ’s policy, if Thunderhorse wants food that the TDCJ does not serve so that he can celebrate religious holidays, he can arrange for outside sources to deliver the food through the prison chaplain. Thunderhorse does not challenge these rulings in his supplemental brief. Therefore, we do not address this claim.6