Aguilar v. Garcia ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40427
USDC No. G-96-CV-710
LUIS A. AGUILAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HECTOR GARCIA; JOHN FLORES; JEFFREY MILSTEEN;
DONNA KLIGAR; WILLIAM WILKINS; JAMES BISSETT,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
---------------------
December 18, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Luis Aguilar seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
from this court following the magistrate judge’s denial of leave
to proceed IFP and certification that Aguilar’s appeal would not
be taken in good faith. Aguilar seeks a transcript of his
pretrial hearing at government expense; his transcript motion is
DENIED. He seeks appointment of counsel on appeal; his motion is
DENIED.
Aguilar contends that the magistrate judge erred by denying
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
his motion for appointment of counsel. He argues that he was
psychologically incapable of prosecuting his case pro se and that
the magistrate judge erred by denying his requests to subpoena
expert psychiatric witnesses to testify about his mental state.
He argues that the magistrate judge erred by failing to order the
Galveston County Jail to furnish the names and addresses of all
of the psychiatrists who had seen him while he was in the custody
of the County. He alleges that he was indigent during the trial
of his case and that he unsuccessfully attempted to employ
private counsel. Aguilar contends that the magistrate judge
erred by denying his request for an expert witness in the field
of document forgery.
We have reviewed Aguilar’s IFP motion and the record on
appeal and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Regarding Aguilar’s requests that two psychiatrists by subpoenaed
as expert witnesses and that a psychiatric expert and a forgery
expert be appointed, the district court was not authorized to pay
expert witness fees. Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th
Cir. 1995). Regarding Aguilar’s remaining contentions, we affirm
the bad-faith certification and deny Aguilar’s IFP motion for
essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Aguilar
v. Garcia, No. G-96-CV-710 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 1998).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.