Filed: Feb. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-40327 Summary Calendar _ ROBERT SHAKESPEARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JEFFREY BOZEMAN, Correctional Guard; LESLIE BROWN, Correctional Guard; CARLOS YBARRA, Correctional Guard; KERRI TUTT, Correctional Guard; KEVIN POWELL, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-767 _ February 2, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER
Summary: THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-40327 Summary Calendar _ ROBERT SHAKESPEARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JEFFREY BOZEMAN, Correctional Guard; LESLIE BROWN, Correctional Guard; CARLOS YBARRA, Correctional Guard; KERRI TUTT, Correctional Guard; KEVIN POWELL, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-767 _ February 2, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER C..
More
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-40327
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ROBERT SHAKESPEARE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JEFFREY BOZEMAN, Correctional Guard;
LESLIE BROWN, Correctional Guard;
CARLOS YBARRA, Correctional Guard;
KERRI TUTT, Correctional Guard;
KEVIN POWELL, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CV-767
_________________________________________________________________
February 2, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Shakespeare, Texas prisoner # 586367, appeals the
district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in this civil
rights action. Shakespeare raises three issues on appeal:
(1) whether he was denied due process when the district court
proceeded to trial even though he was allegedly not mentally
competent; (2) whether the district court erred in finding in favor
of the defendants on his excessive force claim; and (3) whether he
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
received a fair trial when the district court considered his status
as a convicted felon in determining his credibility. Shakespeare
did not present evidence of his alleged mental incompetency. Based
on his submissions to the court, his execution of the consent to
proceed before the magistrate judge, and his failure to demand a
jury trial in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 38(b), the district
court did not err in conducting a bench trial with Shakespeare
proceeding pro se. Shakespeare did not establish that the district
court clearly erred in crediting the testimony of the defendants
and denying his excessive force claim. See Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Finally, Shakespeare has
not established that the district court abused its discretion in
considering his status as a convicted felon. See FED. R. EVID.
609(a)(1). Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
2