Cruz v. Wilson, No. 06-41508 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 8, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-41508 Summary Calendar RICHARD CRUZ Plaintiff-Appellant v. DERICK WILSON Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont USDC No. 1:04-CV-305 Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Richard Cruz, federal prisoner # 60692-079, appeals the district court s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which he claimed that Special Investigative Agent Derric Wilson retaliated against him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Cruz contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because he created a genuine issue of material fact. Cruz * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-41508 argues that he has demonstrated a chronology of events establishing that Wilson assigned him to the prison s Special Housing Unit (SHU) in retaliation for exercising his right to remain silent during an interrogation. Cruz also argues that he has demonstrated that Wilson acted with a retaliatory motive. There is no dispute that Cruz was placed in the SHU before he exercised his right to remain silent. Agent Wilson provided competent summary judgment evidence establishing that Cruz remained in the SHU pending an investigation into a conspiracy to introduce drugs into the prison and that Cruz was released from the SHU once the investigation into his involvement ended. Cruz offered only his personal belief as to Wilson s motivation along with affidavits from several other inmates, who offered no relevant, admissible testimony relating to the investigation of Cruz. Cruz s assertions remain too conclusional to establish either a chronology of events or a retaliatory motive. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1165 (5 Cir. 1995). Thus, Cruz has not shown that the district court erred in granting the defendant s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his suit. Cruz also has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in relation to discovery. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). Although Cruz requested leave to conduct discovery, he did not make any discovery requests that were denied, nor has he identified any particular documents that he wished to obtain through discovery. Cruz s conclusional allegations to the contrary are insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Macklin v. City of New Orleans, 293 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir. 2002). The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
