IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10210
Conference Calendar
JEFFREY LACARDIA MURDOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WES D. DENTON, Corrections Officer;
BILLY BAILEY, Corrections Officer;
DAVID HUDSON,
Defendants-Appellees
and
MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Corrections Officer; JOHN WISE CO.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CV-103 BA
- - - - - - - - - -
December 9, 1997
Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Lacardia Murdock, Texas prisoner # 627998, appeals
the jury’s verdict for defendants in his civil rights action
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-10210
-2-
Murdock’s motions for appointment of counsel, to file a
first amended original petition, for joinder of persons, for
consolidation of defendants, and for an extension of time to file
a reply brief are DENIED.
After requesting and being granted a transcript at
government expense, Murdock does not give any citations to the
record of the jury trial in his entire brief. His statement of
the facts is nothing more than a repeat of his allegations and
does not refer to the evidence introduced at trial as recorded in
the transcript. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require
the parties to provide references to the record to support
statements of fact. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4); 5th Cir.
R. 28.2.3; Moore v. FDIC, 993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. 1993).
Further, Murdock fails to brief any issues relating to
errors in the jury verdict or the magistrate judge’s earlier
dismissal of defendants Wise and Phillips. His entire brief is
devoted to repeated assertions that his version of the incident
was true and that the defendants committed perjury. The jury
found that none of the defendants used excessive force against
Murdock. The standard of review regarding the weight of the
evidence supporting a jury verdict is narrow. See, e.g., Hiller
v. Manufacturers Prod. Research Group of North America, Inc., 59
F.3d 1514, 1522 (5th Cir. 1995)(whether evidence is so strongly
in favor of one party that a reasonable individual could not
arrive at a contrary verdict). Murdock’s brief challenges the
No. 96-10210
-3-
credibility choices made by the jury. We will not disturb those
choices. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3 (5th Cir.
1992)(appellate court will not weigh conflicting evidence or
determine credibility of witnesses). This issue is frivolous.
Murdock also argues that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel due to the fact that he inadequately represented
himself. Because there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in
a civil case, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does
not apply in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal
Service, 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).
We have reviewed the record and find no issue of arguable
merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Murdock that any additional frivolous appeals filed by
him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To
avoid sanctions, Murdock is further cautioned to review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.