Ronnie Davis v. James LeBlanc, 702 F. App'x 230

Ronnie Keith Davis, a Louisiana prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being attacked by another inmate, asserting claims against prison officials and medical staff.
This Court previously affirmed summary judgment for all defendants except guard Benjamin Maddie and remanded the remaining claim against Maddie.
At trial, Maddie’s counsel initially entered a stipulation (then retracted) that Davis had identified his attacker as an enemy before the assault.
Davis proceeded pro se and moved for appointment of counsel; the district court denied the request.
After a jury verdict against Davis, he sought Rule 60(b)(3) relief alleging fraud, witness-tampering, and misconduct; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Davis appealed the denial of counsel, estoppel based on the retracted stipulation, and the denial of Rule 60(b)(3) relief; this Court affirmed and denied motions for appointment of counsel and other relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of appointment of counsel	Davis argued he needed counsel to present his § 1983 claim effectively	Court and Maddie argued claim was straightforward and Davis could litigate pro se	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; appointment on appeal denied
Judicial estoppel retracted stipulation	Davis argued Maddie should be estopped from contradicting counsel's (retracted) stipulation that Davis identified his attacker as an enemy	Maddie argued the stipulation was mistaken and trial evidence contradicted it	Court held no abuse of discretion; estoppel inappropriate where evidence contradicted stipulation and retraction was inadvertent/mistake
Use of stipulation to revisit dismissal of other defendants	Davis argued the stipulation warranted reexamination of previously dismissed defendants	Defendants relied on prior affirmance and law of the case	Court refused to reopen prior dismissals; previous affirmance remains law of the case
Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief (fraud, tampering, misconduct)	Davis alleged fraud, witness-tampering, and improper actions by counsel and the court, seeking relief from judgment	Defendants and district court treated allegations as vague/conclusory lacking clear-and-convincing proof; no hearing required	Denial affirmed: allegations insufficient under Rule 60(b)(3); district court did not abuse discretion in ruling without evidentiary hearing

Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil rights cases)
United States ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C., 798 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2015) (standards for estoppel and related discretion)
Coastal States Mktg. v. Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1983) (judicial estoppel and related equitable principles)
Rathborne Land Co., L.L.C. v. Ascent Energy, Inc., 610 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of estoppel and evidentiary matters)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel may not apply where prior position was inadvertent or mistaken)
Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2006) (law-of-the-case doctrine)
McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for Rule 60(b) procedural review)
Longden v. Sunderman, 979 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1992) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires clear-and-convincing proof of fraud)