Terrence Benoit v. Iberia Parish Police Dept., et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-30965 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 06/13/2014; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Terrence Knight Benoit [7545764-2] [13-30965]

Case: 13-30965

Document: 00512640809

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/23/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-30965
Summary Calendar

FILED
May 23, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

TERRENCE KNIGHT BENOIT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

POLICE DEPARTMENT OF IBERIA PARISH; JUDGE G. B. WATTIGNY;
16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:13-CV-1376
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Terrence Knight Benoit, Louisiana prisoner # 489486, appeals the
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his pro se, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, civil rights complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Benoit moves for
appointment of appellate counsel. However, he is not proceeding in forma

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 13-30965

Document: 00512640809

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/23/2014

No. 13-30965
pauperis, and he has made no attempt to show that he is indigent. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, his motion is denied.
In his complaint, Benoit alleged that he had been illegally arrested and
was illegally confined and that after his arrest there was an illegal search and
seizure. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge’s determination
that the complaint failed to state a claim because the relief Benoit sought immediate release - could not be obtained via § 1983.
Although Benoit reasserts in his appellate brief the claims he raised
below, he does not address the district court’s reason for dismissing the
complaint.

Thus, he has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s

dismissal.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Benoit raises for the first time on appeal numerous issues that he did
not raise in the district court. We decline to address these issues. See Stewart
Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307,
316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

2