Albert Lynch v. J. Valez
705 F. App'x 295
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Albert Lynch, a Texas prisoner, sued five Harris County jail officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging failure to protect him from inmate Lucky Ward and failure to follow jail restraint procedures during escorts on a lockdown cellblock.
- Service was completed on officers Morgan and Brooks; service on the other three failed because Lynch provided insufficient identifying information and he did not timely file a proposed amended complaint to cure the defect.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Morgan and Brooks, concluding Lynch failed to show the officers were deliberately indifferent to an imminent threat and alternatively granting qualified immunity.
- Lynch sought additional discovery and contended the district court abused its discretion by not compelling full responses; the court had already ordered certain discovery (interrogatories, rules/regulations, incident reports) but denied further requests as speculative.
- Lynch moved for appointment of counsel (district court denied for lack of exceptional circumstances) and sought counsel on appeal; the court denied appointment on appeal as well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying additional discovery | Additional discovery would produce facts showing deliberate indifference | Court had provided relevant discovery; requests were vague/speculative | No abuse of discretion; Lynch failed to show how more discovery would create a genuine issue |
| Whether appointment of counsel was warranted | Exceptional circumstances exist; Lynch needs counsel | No exceptional circumstances; Lynch can litigate pro se | Denied; no exceptional circumstances shown |
| Whether court abused discretion by not securing service on three defendants | Court should have ordered service despite incomplete info | Lynch failed to cure defects (no proposed amended complaint) | No abuse of discretion; Lynch failed to provide required information |
| Whether summary judgment on the merits was erroneous | (argued in parts but not pressed on appeal) | Officers not deliberately indifferent; qualified immunity applies | Lynch abandoned challenge to merits; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir.) (rejects vague assertions that unspecified additional discovery will produce needed facts)
- McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion in discovery disputes)
- Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82 (5th Cir.) (appointment of counsel requires exceptional circumstances)
- Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff must cure service defects to obtain service)
- Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff bears responsibility to provide accurate defendant information for service)
- Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir.) (failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment)