Shakespeare v. Boudreaux

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41475
Summary Calendar
ROBERT SHAKESPEARE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOANNE BOUDREAUX,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-146
- - - - - - - - - -
September 4, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Shakespeare, Texas inmate # 586367, appeals from the
take-nothing judgment in his civil rights suit filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Shakespeare argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for the appointment
of counsel, denying his right of confrontation, and failing to
sustain his objection to the defendant’s testimony regarding who
was housed in the prison building. Shakespeare also argues that
a juror made prejudicial statements during voir dire.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-41475
-2-
Shakespeare has not demonstrated that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for the appointment
of counsel; his pleadings demonstrate that he was capable of
presenting his case, and he was aware of the facts underlying his
excessive-force claim. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242
(5th Cir. 1989). We are unable to review Shakespeare’s claims
that a juror’s statement during voir dire prejudiced the jury and
that the district court erred in failing to sustain his objection
to the defendant’s testimony because Shakespeare has failed to
provide critical parts of the record, namely the jury trial
proceedings. See United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 632
(5th Cir. 1992). Finally, Shakespeare has not shown that the
district court violated his right of confrontation by not
ordering Lisa Caesar and Stanford Broussard to appear at the
trial as there is no indication in the record provided to the
court that he requested that either of them be subpoenaed.
Shakespeare’s motion for a default judgment is DENIED.
This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

-- 2 of 2 --