Leverton v. West

No. 98-41185 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41185 Summary Calendar DAVID RAY LEVERTON ET AL., Plaintiffs, DAVID RAY LEVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TIMOTHY WEST, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, TIMOTHY WEST, Warden; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ROBERT MORIN, Major; HAROLD HASTY, Food Manager; CLINT GILBERT, Sergeant; JIMMY BINGHAM, Sergeant; DENISE MELANCON, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-448 -------------------- March 24, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Ray Leverton, Texas state prisoner # 373652, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-41185 -2- frivolous. Leverton argues that the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights claims without conducting a Spears** hearing. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for appointment of counsel, for class action certification, and to file a supplemental complaint. Leverton has shown no error in the district court’s dismissal of his claims without conducting a Spears hearing because Leverton developed his claims in the district court in his amended complaints. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leverton’s motion for the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leverton’s motion for class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Tex., 118 F.3d 421, 425-26 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1052 (1998). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Leverton’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); Lewis v. Knutson, 699 F.2d 230, 239 (5th Cir. 1983). AFFIRMED. ** Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).