Case: 13-40610 Document: 00513107164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-40610 FILED
Summary Calendar July 7, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
KENDELL L. MURPHY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BARRY S. ANDREWS; SHERMAN COOPER; JAMES DANHIEM; JIMMY O.
BOWMAN; WILLIAM R. MOTAL; RICK THALER; WILLIAM R. SUTER,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:10-CV-508
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Kendell L. Murphy, Texas prisoner # 1372192, appeals the dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against remaining defendants Barry S. Andrews and
Sherman Cooper following a jury trial. He asserts that (1) Andrews, Cooper,
and other defense witnesses perjured themselves and misled the jury; (2) the
district court improperly prevented him from cross-examining Andrews and
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-40610 Document: 00513107164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-40610
Cooper regarding inconsistent statements that they made in their affidavits;
(3) the State improperly prevented him from obtaining sworn declarations from
unidentified individuals and from calling unspecified witnesses at trial by
making them unavailable; (4) the district court improperly denied him an
opportunity to thoroughly cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses; (5) the
activity logs to which the State’s attorney referred during his cross-
examination of Murphy were fabricated, and Murphy had not been previously
notified of the defense’s intent to rely upon them; (6) the cell door photograph
to which the State’s attorney attempted to refer during cross-examination of
witness Bradius Davis was prejudicial and irrelevant; and (7) Davis and
Murphy were purposely transported in the same van so that aspersions could
be cast on Davis’s credibility by suggesting that Davis and Murphy fabricated
Davis’s testimony.
Through his perjury argument, Murphy seeks, at base, for this court to
overturn the jury’s credibility determinations; however, such determinations
are the jury’s province, not ours. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 (5th
Cir. 1992). Murphy’s remaining arguments, which are devoid of citations to
the record or supporting case law, are insufficient. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8);
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that even pro se
litigants must brief arguments to preserve them). In any event, they are not
supported by the record.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Murphy’s
motion for appointment of counsel.
2