IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50852
Summary Calendar
LARRY JOE JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RONALD URBANOVSKY, Sheriff;
LOU LOURCEY; SHAWN ELDRIDGE, Jailer,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-94-CV-697
- - - - - - - - - -
January 20, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Joe Jones, Texas prisoner # 621238, has filed an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal, following a jury verdict for some defendants and the
district court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment as a
matter of law for other defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. By moving for IFP, Jones is challenging the district
court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on appeal
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50852
-2-
because his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Jones argues that the jury erroneously concluded that the
defendants did not cause him to suffer cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Jones is
contesting the jury’s credibility decisions. This court will not
disturb the credibility determinations of the factfinder, here
the jury, on appeal. See Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc., 990 F.2d
228, 230 (5th Cir. 1993); Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3
(5th Cir. 1992).
Jones argues that he was unable to present his best case to
the jury because the district court denied his requests for
appointment of counsel. Jones contends that the district court
erroneously denied his requests for appointment of counsel. He
alleges that he demonstrated that he was incompetent to represent
himself at trial and that the case was sufficiently complex to
require appointment of counsel. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Jones’ motion for appointment of
counsel. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th
Cir. 1986).
Jones also argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his claims against Eldridge and Dr. Stigler. Jones
has not adequately briefed his arguments relating to the district
court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law for Eldridge or the
district court’s grant of summary judgment for Dr. Stigler. See
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(4); 5th Cir. R. 28.2.3.
No. 96-50852
-3-
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Jones’ request
for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Jones that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions.
To avoid sanctions, Jones is further cautioned to review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.