Kittelson v. Nafrawi ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11250
Summary Calendar
BRUCE KITTELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MD ADEL NAFRAWI; ET AL.,
Defendants,
MD ADEL NAFRAWI; MD STEPHEN PECK; KAREN HORSLEY, LVN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-93
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bruce Kittelson, Texas prisoner # 818614, filed a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint against numerous prison officials alleging that
they had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. Kittelson’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous. We
affirmed that dismissal in large part. Kittelson v. Nafrawi, 112
Fed. App’x 946, 947 (5th Cir. 2004). However, we vacated and
remanded the case for further proceedings on Kittelson’s claims
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-11250
-2-
against Dr. Adel Nafrawi, Dr. Stephen Peck, and Nurse Karen
Horsley that he was delayed and denied medical care from
September 20 through November 2, 2001. Id. at 947-48.
On remand, the factual issues were further narrowed through
a partial grant of summary judgment, and the case proceeded to a
jury trial. The case against Horsley was dismissed pursuant to a
FED. R. CIV. P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. The
jury determined that neither Nafrawi nor Peck had been
deliberately indifferent to Kittelson’s serious medical needs.
Kittelson now appeals.
Kittelson argues that he was denied his constitutional right
of access to the courts when he was separated from his legal
materials for a significant portion of the two-month period
before his trial. Despite this hardship, Kittelson was able to
prepare and transmit necessary legal documents to the court to
further the prosecution of his case. Thus, he was not denied
meaningful access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 351, 355 (1996); Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Kittelson contends that the district court should have
allowed him to amend his complaint after remand to reinstate his
claims against those defendants that had already been dismissed
from the suit. Kittelson’s amendment was beyond the scope of the
remand. See Henderson v. Stalder, 407 F.3d 351, 354 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2967 (2006). Furthermore, given
No. 05-11250
-3-
that this court had already affirmed the dismissal of those
defendants and given the late hour at which Kittelson filed his
motion to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying that motion. See Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Co.,
394 F.3d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 2004).
Kittelson argues that the district court erred in denying
his motions for the appointment of counsel. The issues on remand
were sufficiently narrow, and this case was not particularly
complex. Kittelson has amply demonstrated that he was capable of
adequately investigating and presenting his case. There was no
abuse of discretion. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th
Cir. 1987); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.
1982). Finally, the district court did not abuse its sound
discretion in denying Kittelson’s motions for discovery on remand
in view of the defendants’ assertion of the defense of qualified
immunity. See Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 752 (5th
Cir. 2005); Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.
1990).
AFFIRMED.