Simmons v. TX Med Bd

Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 27, 2021
No. 19-10904
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jason Levon Simmons,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Ray Jackson, Attorney; Texas Medical Board; Bianca
San Miguel, as executrix of the Estate of Oscar San Miguel, substituted in
place and stead of Oscar San Miguel, deceased; Barbara Jordan,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-1700
Before Elrod, Southwick, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
After a series of amended complaints, Jason Simmons alleged claims
of RICO conspiracy, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract against his
former attorneys Ray Jackson and Oscar San Miguel, the Texas Medical
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2021
No. 19-10904
Board, Methodist Hospital of Dallas, and Barbara Jordan, an attorney for the
hospital. The district court dismissed the claims against Jackson, the Board,
the Hospital, and Jordan. The district court then granted summary judgment
to San Miguel and entered final judgment as to all parties and claims.
Simmons timely appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e).
Simmons asserts seven challenges to the district court’s orders—
none of his challenges has merit. First, Simmons contends that the district
court failed to liberally construe his pro se pleadings, but there is no support
in the record for this conclusory assertion. See Coleman v. United States, 912
F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019).
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Simmons’s motion to file a post-judgment affidavit merely to correct a
clerical error. See Russ v. Int’l Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 1991).
Third, the district court implicitly denied Simmons’s Rule 60(b)
motion when it said that it had already denied the motion, declared that
“there is no Rule 60 motion pending,” and denied Simmons’s motion for a
hearing on the issue. On appeal, Simmons has not shown that the denial was
“unwarranted,” let alone “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of
discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A
Jan. 1981).
2
Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2021
No. 19-10904
Fourth, the district court correctly dismissed Simmons’s complaints
against the Hospital and Jackson under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar, 975 F.3d 523, 528 (5th Cir. 2020).
Fifth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying
discovery pending resolution of Jordan’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
See Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987).
Sixth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Simmons’s motion to file a fifth amended complaint alleging a new
transaction. See Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751
F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014).
Finally, Rule 52(b) motions are meant to “correct manifest errors of
law or fact.” Fontenot v. Mesa Petrol. Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986);
accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to amend its judgment with additional factual findings. See
Fontenot, 791 F.2d at 1219.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
A prior motions panel of this court dismissed both the Hospital and Jackson from
this appeal. To the extent that the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of the Hospital
and Jackson are now before us, we affirm the district court’s orders.
3