Spivey v. Wilson, 19-40885

Robert Spivey, a Texas prisoner, sued several TDCJ officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an assault during transfer between units.
He alleged defendants were deliberately indifferent / failed to protect him during transport; he also asserted other claims (failure to train, ignored I-60, racial discrimination) that he later failed to press on appeal.
The district court denied some discovery relief but granted six of 12 motions to compel in part, ordered production of photos/policies, and gave multiple deadline extensions; defendants produced all existing materials and swore no color photos existed.
Medical records showed a contusion and three small lacerations treated with Dermabond and Tylenol, with no follow-up care requested or provided.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding injuries were de minimis and alternatively finding qualified immunity; it also denied Spivey’s request for appointed counsel.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: Spivey abandoned several claims by failing to brief them, did not show discovery abuse, failed to overcome the de minimis-injury bar, and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances for counsel appointment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Abuse of district court’s discovery rulings and refusal to extend time	District court prevented needed discovery (color photos, other docs) and should have granted more time/sanctions	Court already granted several motions to compel, gave extensions; defendants produced all existing materials and sworn no color photos exist	No abuse of discretion; discovery rulings and timing decisions affirmed
Whether summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes exist on failure-to-protect / deliberate indifference	Spivey says submitted documents create genuine disputes precluding summary judgment	Medical records and submitted evidence show only minor injuries; Spivey did not rebut the de minimis finding or press some claims on appeal	Summary judgment proper; Spivey abandoned some claims and failed to create a triable issue on the Eighth Amendment claim
Whether injuries were more than de minimis for Eighth Amendment purposes	Spivey disputes medical account and asserts more serious harm	Records show contusion and small lacerations, treated conservatively, no follow-up; such injuries are de minimis	Court relied on Siglar: injuries de minimis, claim fails
Denial of appointment of counsel	Spivey cites low IQ, limited education, and (for first time on appeal) mental-health hospitalizations preventing effective litigation	No exceptional circumstances shown to require appointed counsel	No abuse of discretion; appointment denial affirmed

Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment rulings)
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997) (minor injuries may be de minimis for Eighth Amendment claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (failure to brief issues constitutes abandonment)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (abandonment for failure to brief)
Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases)