IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40288
Conference Calendar
__________________
EARTHEL B. HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
N.C. MCCLURE; B. THALER, T.L. DOERR;
C. PURVIS; B.W. RODEEN; R. AYERS;
L.J. JOHNSON; R.S. STULTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-87-CV-346
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 20, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case is here on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal. This Court may authorize Hill to proceed IFP on
appeal if he is unable to pay the costs of the appeal and the
appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents
nonfrivolous issues. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Holmes v. Hardy, 852
F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 931 (1988).
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40288
-2-
Hill argues in his first three listed issues that the
district court appointed ineffective counsel, that court-
appointed counsel misrepresented him, and that he had an
expectation that he would receive reasonable representation from
counsel appointed by the district court. This court addressed
this issue in its previous order, noting that there is no right
to effective representation under the Sixth Amendment in civil
cases, citing Sanchez v. United States Postal Service, 785 F.2d
1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). This issue is frivolous.
Hill contends that he requested the district court to
instruct the jury that they could infer from the obviousness of
the risk that the defendants had knowledge, and that the district
court rejected this request. He contends that the facts
supported such an instruction.
Hill does not provide any record citations. He does not
state what facts support the instruction. This court could
decline to address this issue for failure to brief it adequately.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Alternatively, addressing the merits
of the issue, Hill is correct that in Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.
Ct. 1970, 1981-82 (1994), the Supreme Court stated that knowledge
could be inferred from an obvious risk. Hill did request the
district court to instruct the jury that "the requisite knowledge
can be demonstrated through direct evidence or inferred through
circumstantial evidence," but he did not request the district
court to instruct the jury that they could infer knowledge from
the obviousness of the risk. Thus, Hill was not deprived of a
No. 95-40288
-3-
fair trial due to the district court's failure to give an
instruction that was never requested.
Hill argues that the district court abused its discretion in
granting defendants' summary judgment motion. He states that the
defendants did not show that there was no genuine issue of
material fact or that they were entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law.
Hill does not state what material issues of fact he contends
exist to preclude summary judgment for the defendants. He does
not cite any case law regarding his burden of proof on the
dismissed claims, or what facts he presented to the court on
summary judgment which would allow him to reach the jury on those
claims. This Court will not raise and discuss legal issues that
the appellant has failed to assert. Claims not pressed on appeal
are considered abandoned. A recitation of rules governing review
of summary judgment without identification of any error in the
district court's analysis or application to the facts of the case
is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment.
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
We caution Hill that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions.
To avoid sanctions, Hill is further cautioned to review any
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.