United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10762
Summary Calendar
MARCELINO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FNU LUEVA; FNU GONZALEZ; JOHN DOE,
Parole Officer; FNU GARRISON; FNU ORTIZ;
FNU GARCIA; FNU ANDERSON; BILL CHEATHAM,
SCC; JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION; JOHN DOE, SCC; JANE DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-126-BG
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcelino Martinez, Texas prisoner #526628, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motions for a preliminary
injunction and for appointment of counsel. Martinez wishes to be
placed in "super-seg[regation] protective custody" pending a
disposition of his civil rights claims by the district court.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10762
-2-
Martinez’s civil rights claims against the TDCJ-ID Connally
Unit personnel have been dismissed by the Western District of
Texas for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, see Martinez v. Ambriz, No. SA-03-CA-319-EP (W.D. Tex.
May 21, 2003), and, although his claims against the TDCJ-ID Smith
Unit personnel are still pending before the Northern District,
Martinez is no longer housed at the Smith Unit and, thus, he is
in no danger from the personnel or inmates at the Smith Unit.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Martinez’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See
White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989); Women’s
Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in
denying Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel, and his
motion to this court for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.