IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40325
Summary Calendar
RICKY G. MORENO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEPHER JENKINS; ORLANDO PEREZ; WILLIAM
A. BOOTHE; WILLIE MARTIN, JR.; DOUGLAS
DRETKE; BRIAN RODEEN; JOANN DAVIS; ENCINIA
SABAS, JR.; JULIA Z. LOPEZ; OPAL D. STEPHENS;
BARTOLO GONZALES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-99-CV-246
--------------------
October 17, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky G. Moreno (Moreno), Texas prisoner #501109, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motions for appointed counsel,
a temporary restraining order (TRO), discovery, and a partial
summary judgment. He also appeals the district court’s granting
of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Moreno’s request for appointed counsel, as Moreno did not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40325
-2-
establish that his civil rights case presented exceptional
circumstances. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th
Cir. 1982). We do not have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s denial of Moreno’s motion for a TRO. In re Lieb, 915
F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court’s rulings with
respect to Moreno’s motions for discovery and to compel discovery
were not arbitrary and clearly unreasonable. Mayo v. Tri-Bell
Indus., Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreno has
waived his argument that the district court erred in granting
defendants’ summary judgment before he had a chance to conduct
full discovery. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We do not consider Moreno’s
argument that the district court erred in refusing him leave to
take written depositions as the record does not indicate that
Moreno filed such a motion with the district court.
This court reviews a grant or denial of summary judgment de
novo. Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 616 (5th Cir. 1994).
Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to
the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). A
plaintiff must show that his position as a litigant was
prejudiced by his denial of access to courts. Eason v. Thaler,
73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996). Conclusional allegations are
insufficient to support a civil rights claim. Moody v. Baker,
857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114,
117 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 01-40325
-3-
As Moreno failed to show that his legal position in any
state or federal case was prejudiced by the defendants’ alleged
actions, the district court did not err either in denying
Moreno’s motion for partial summary judgment or in granting
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the
district court is therefore AFFIRMED. Moreno’s motions for
appointment of counsel and oral argument are DENIED.