The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-50476
Summary Calendar
_____________________
WENDELL MORRIS ROBERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAN MORALES, Attorney General;
JOHN C. BARTON; WILLIAM K.
HERRING; JOHN B. WORLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(A-96-CV-445)
_________________________________________________________________
July 8, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wendell Morris Roberson, Texas prisoner #443120, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants and the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He
argues that his pleadings established that the defendants
intentionally withheld the state record from him in his previous
federal habeas case and that they violated his due process and
equal protection rights, his right to self-representation, and his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
right of access to the courts. He also challenges the magistrate
judge’s denial of his motion for an extension of time in order to
conduct discovery.
Roberson’s civil rights complaint alleged that the defendants
failed to provide Roberson with the state record in his previous 28
U.S.C. § 2254 case, that he was entitled to receive the state
record, and that the district court in the habeas case had twice
ordered the state to provide Roberson with the record.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th
Cir. 1996). Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the
defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if their
actions were objectively reasonable in the light of clearly
established law existing at the time of the alleged offense. See
Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994). Whether
a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a two-step
inquiry, and the first question is whether the plaintiff alleged
the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See
Seigert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991).
Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases does not require
the respondent to serve the petitioner with a copy of the state
record, but rather requires only that the respondent submit into
the habeas record those portions of the state record he or the
court deems relevant. Roberson cites to no authority stating that
he was entitled to receive the state record. Furthermore, the two
2
orders of the district court in Roberson’s § 2254 case required
only that the respondent produce documents for the record, not that
the documents had to be provided to Roberson. Roberson failed to
establish that the defendants violated a clearly established
constitutional right by not providing him with the state record,
and the defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity. See
Seigert, 500 U.S. at 232.
Furthermore, any discovery Roberson sought in order to prove
the defendants’ alleged unreasonable motives with not providing him
with the state record would not have assisted Roberson in
overcoming the qualified immunity defense. The denial of
Roberson’s discovery motion was not an abuse of discretion. See
King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994); Marshall v.
Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1984). The judgment of the
district court is
A F F I R M E D.1
1
Roberson’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is
GRANTED.
3