Court Opinion

ID: 9412914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:41.706838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.842195
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40807        Document: 00516841838             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 21-40807
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                            FILED
                                                                       August 1, 2023
                                    ____________
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   Aaron Malone,                                                            Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Kristine Zambrano, Sergeant/Lieutenant McConnell Unit Prison;
   Kenneth Putnam, Warden, McConnell Unit Prison; Major Gould,
   Major/Lieutenant McConnell Unit Prison; Selles, Mailroom Supervisor
   McConnell Unit Prison; Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice; Christina Rodriguez, Unit Grievance Investigator-
   McConnell Unit Prison; Officer Landry, Correctional Officer-
   McConnell Unit Prison; Officer Thompson, Correctional Officer-
   McConnell Unit Prison,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:19-CV-269
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40807      Document: 00516841838           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                     No. 21-40807

          Aaron Malone, Texas prisoner # 1697643, is proceeding pro se on
   appeal, as he did in district court. In 2019, he filed a complaint under 42
   U.S.C. § 1983, claiming defendants retaliated against him and violated his
   right of access to the courts after he filed a state-court action in 2015 against
   prison officials. Malone maintains the district court committed various
   procedural errors and challenges its granting defendants’ summary-
   judgment motion and dismissing this action. The court’s 47-page order
   contains the numerous contested rulings, except the denial of Malone’s
   motion for new trial.
          Our court reviews a summary judgment de novo. E.g., Austin v. Kroger
   Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017). It is proper if “movant shows
   . . . there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and . . . movant is
   entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute
   of material fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
   could return a verdict for the nonmoving party”. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
   Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
          The court ruled that Malone failed to exhaust many of his claims. It
   also entered alternative rulings regarding each claim.         Malone fails to
   adequately challenge these rulings; accordingly, the court did not err in
   granting summary judgment to defendants. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
   222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Although we liberally construe the briefs of
   pro se appellants, we also require that arguments mut be briefed to be
   preserved.” (citation omitted)); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding appellant abandons claim
   on appeal by failing to identify error in district court’s analysis); Hugh Symons
   Grp., plc v. Motorola, Inc., 292 F.3d 466, 468 (5th Cir. 2002)
   (“Unsubstantiated assertions . . . [and] conclusory allegations are not
   competent summary judgment evidence and are insufficient to overcome a
   summary judgment motion”.).

                                          2
Case: 21-40807      Document: 00516841838          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 21-40807

          As for Malone’s claims of procedural error, the court did not abuse its
   discretion. The court declined to grant Malone additional extensions to
   conduct discovery because he generally asserted defendants possessed
   evidence he needed, as opposed to identifying any evidence that would
   produce a genuine dispute of material fact. E.g., Am. Family Life Assur. Co.
   of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013) (explaining non-moving
   party requesting additional discovery “may not simply rely on vague
   assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified,
   facts” (citation omitted)).
          Additionally, the court denied his requests for appointment of
   counsel, based on his failing to show exceptional circumstances existed. E.g.,
   Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[A] district court is not
   required to appoint counsel in the absence of exceptional circumstances”.
   (citation omitted)).
          Next, in denying his motion to supplement his more definite
   statement of his claims, the court ruled it was untimely because it was filed
   four months after defendants filed their summary-judgment motion and after
   the deadline in the scheduling order for filing amended pleadings. E.g.,
   Wright v. Allstate Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 384, 391 (5th Cir. 2005) (stating motion
   to amend may be permissibly denied for “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
   motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
   amendments previously allowed, . . . and futility of amendment” (citation
   omitted)).
          Further, the court did not abuse its discretion by striking Malone’s
   cross-motion for summary judgment because it ruled his motion was
   untimely and that Malone failed to show good cause to excuse the
   untimeliness. E.g., Batiste v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting
   district court’s broad discretion in enforcing scheduling order deadlines).

                                         3
Case: 21-40807      Document: 00516841838          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 21-40807

          And, that evidence contains “variations, discrepancies, and
   contradictions”, does not make it inadmissible; therefore, the court did not
   abuse its discretion in denying Malone’s motions to strike defendants’
   summary-judgment evidence. Rogers v. Pearland Indep. Sch. Dist., 827 F.3d
   403, 406–07 (5th Cir. 2016) (alterations omitted) (citation omitted); see also
   Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Regarding Malone’s assertion that the court failed to consider various
   items of evidence, the record reflects the court did consider his evidence.
   Any evidence not considered was improper summary-judgment evidence and
   not before the court.
          Finally, Malone makes no assertions concerning the denial of his new-
   trial motion; therefore, he abandoned any challenge he may have had on that
   basis. E.g., Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224–25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4