Roy Gates v. James E. Donald ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-12608
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar
January 19, 2006
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 00-00581-CV-BBM-1
ROY GATES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES E. DONALD,
Commissioner, et al.,
Defendants,
HARRELL,
MARTIN,
THOMAS,
DOE 1,
DOE 2,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 19, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Roy Gates appeals pro se the verdict in favor of the
defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Gates also appeals the district court’s
denials of his motion for a new trial and request for a copy of the trial transcript.
After review, we affirm.
Gates, a Georgia prisoner, filed a § 1983 complaint against the
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) and numerous
other GDOC employees. The district court either dismissed or granted summary
judgment to the defendants on all of Gates’s § 1983 claims.
Gates appealed, and this Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary
judgment as to three GDOC employees regarding Gates’s claim that he was
assaulted by prison guards when he did not speak loudly enough in practicing a
greeting for the warden. Gates v. Wetherington, No. 01-11456, at 7-12, 35 (11 th
Cir. Jan. 22, 2002).
On remand, Gates was appointed counsel and the case then went to trial.
After a two-day trial in which both Gates and the defendants testified, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the three defendants. Gates appeals pro se.
On appeal, Gates asserts that the jury instructions were improper and
2
misleading.1 However, Gates’s brief on appeal merely states that the jury was
misled, but does not specify how the instructions were misleading. Furthermore,
his brief fails to identify any specific jury instruction that was allegedly improper.
Even construing Gates’s pro se brief liberally and reviewing the jury instructions,
we find no reversible error, plain or otherwise, in the jury instructions.
Gates also claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for a
new trial and in refusing his request for a copy of the trial transcript. We disagree.
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1163 (11 th Cir. 2002).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other
proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by
the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not
frivolous (but presents a substantial question).”
Gates’s pro se motion for a new trial did not raise any trial errors, but merely
1
When reviewing the trial court’s jury instructions, this Court examines “whether the jury
charges, considered as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so that the jurors understood the
issues and were not misled[,]” and will reverse only when “left with a substantial and
ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Bearint v.
Dorell Juvenile Group, Inc., 389 F.3d 1339, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). However, when no objection to the jury instructions is made, this Court
reviews for plain error, and will reverse only when “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain;
(3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless;
and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial
proceeding.” United States v. Prieto, 232 F.3d 816, 819 (11th Cir. 2000).
3
requested a copy of the trial transcript. However, Gates then filed a “proposed
enumeration of errors,” stating that he wanted to amend his motion for new trial
and alleging: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective and contributed to Gates’s not
being prepared for trial and not receiving a fair trial; (2) the district court failed to
give proper jury instructions; (3) a “conspiracy” occurred because the district court
did not announce to the jurors that “these are civil rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
1985 claims, Eighth Amendment claims”; and (4) a “conspiracy” occurred when
vital evidence and facts were withheld.
Other than referencing his “enumeration of errors,” Gates’s brief on appeal
fails to alleged any specific (or even general) error committed during the trial. We
readily conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Gates’s motion for a new trial. Additionally, to the extent Gates argues that he
should have been provided with a copy of the trial transcripts, he has not shown
how the district court erred in refusing to certify his appeal as not frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
4