David Vernon Martin, Sr. v. Harrison Cnty. Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
David Vernon Martin, Sr. v. Harrison Cnty. Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 22× by 22 distinct cases, 2009–2026 · 2 courts↑ Rising · …the notice afforded by the rules of civil procedure and the local rules at p. 193 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2022–2025 · …pro se status does not exempt a litigant from the usual evidentiary requirements of summary judgment. ⚠ not in text
111 citation events (91 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cervantez v. Frith (txnd, 2025-05-02) · Strongest negative: Renchenski v. Williams (ca3, 2010-10-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Renchenski v. Williams
3rd Cir. · 2010 · signal: but see · confidence high
See generally Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir.1988); Brown v. Shinbaum, 828 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir.1987); Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir.1982); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975); but see Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir.1992); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir.1987) (holding no additional procedure beyond that outlined in Rule 56 is necessary in the non-prisoner pro se context); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-67 (9th Cir.1986) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cervantez v. Frith
N.D. Tex. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
appellant was attempting suicide and the guards had an obligation to prevent this. some force was called for.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bagley v. Kolb
W.D. La. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
appellant was attempting suicide and the guards had an obligation to prevent this. some force was called for.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) MARK D. WEIR v. T.D. TRAMEL; TARRANT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
unknown court · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
particularized additional notice of the potential consequences of a summary judgment motion and the right to submit opposing affidavits need not be afforded a pro se litigant.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leah Rene Hagen v. Warden Tanisha Hall
S.D. Tex. · 2026 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kisha Peters v. Banner Health d/b/a BHT Banner Health of Texas
S.D. Tex. · 2026 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that Court need not provide pro se litigants with particularized notice regarding consequences of a Rule 56 motion or court procedures).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL2 v. Steven Crear, Sr., et al.
N.D. Tex. · 2026 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)); see also Bookman v. Shubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christian Lauria v. Lieb
3rd Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thunderhorse v. Collier
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Collns v. M&T Bank
W.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Slayton v. Spells
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daywalt v. Blanquiz
W.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sheedy v. Thompson
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sowell v. Richardson
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hedspeth v. Warden Tanisha Hall, PH.D.
S.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Officer A. Codero
W.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moreno v. Microsoft Corporation
S.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Volvo Financial Services v. Little
N.D. Miss. · 2024 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (Sth Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Bexar County (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Whiting v. Kelly, 255 F. App’x 896, 899 (5th Cir. 2007) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lan v. University of Texas at San Antonio
W.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleming v. Methodist Hospital
W.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Prather v. City of Conroe
S.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eubanks v. Martin
E.D. La. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCray v. Gonzalez
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rutledge v. Hawkins
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. Transportation Communication Union/IAM
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); see also E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Despite our general willingness to construe pro se filings liberally, we still require pro se parties to fundamentally abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.”) (cleaned up). 4 II.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniels v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kuhn v. Hawkins
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Glenn v. Hawkins
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Lee
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McClain v. I-10 Mac Haik CDJR LTD
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). —Section 1915 Under Section 1915, a district court “shall dismiss [a] case” brought by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see also Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002); Patel v. United Airlines, 620 Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carranza v. Shelton & Valadez, P.C.
W.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reyes v. City of Austin, Inc.
W.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (Sth Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Coker v. Kimbrough
S.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Esquivel v. Kendrick
W.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Castillo v. NewRez LLC
W.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brunson v. Williams
W.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simon v. Townsend
S.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capps v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice
S.D. Tex. · 2021 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. City of San Antonio, Texas
W.D. Tex. · 2021 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. Kolkhorst
W.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Garza v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hardaway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith, Jr. v. Barnes
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDonald v. Davis
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (Sth Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Davis
S.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (Sth Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleetwood v. McMahon
W.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)). 2 If Fleetwood had filed an IFP motion, and the Court granted it, then he would not have been responsible for service of process.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Saville v. Winston
S.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hood v. Livingston
S.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mobley III v. Davis
S.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Vernon Martin, Sr.
v.
Harrison County Jail
91-1831.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 19, 1992.
975 F.2d 192
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26881
1992 WL 247270
Cited by 88 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%

975 F.2d 192

24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 347

David Vernon MARTIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HARRISON COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-1831.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1992.

David Vernon Martin, Sr., pro se.

William F. Dukes, William H. Pettey, Jr., Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, Gulfport, Miss., for Harrison County Jail.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~192–193]1

Appellant sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of the conditions of his confinement in the Harrison County, Mississippi jail and that, while confined, he was assaulted by a guard. Defendants moved for summary judgment. In a thorough and detailed opinion the experienced trial judge found that no issues of material fact existed and granted the summary judgment dismissing Appellant's case. We have carefully studied the record and the briefs and we agree.

2

Appellant argues that issues of fact exist as to the denial of medical care, the sanitary conditions of his cell, the exercise he was provided, his sleeping accommodations, and his dining privileges. Our review of the record convinces us, as it did the trial judge, that this is not the case.

3

On the assault issue, the Appellant alleges that he was struck while the guard was trying to prevent Appellant from cutting his wrist in a suicide attempt. He does not allege whether he was struck once or more than once, whether the blows were significant or not, how many people hit him, or any such facts. Appellant was attempting suicide and the guards had an obligation to prevent this. Some force was called for. He, therefore, has raised no fact issue as to the excessiveness of the force used sufficient to withstand summary judgment.

4

Appellant next contends that he should have been afforded a hearing as an opportunity to state his issues more plainly and to better understand what was required of him. He relies on Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F.2d 306 (5th Cir.1980). That case is distinguishable. There plaintiff's attempts at discovery were thwarted early on. Here plaintiff has had extensive discovery.

5

Appellant also argues that he should have been specifically instructed by the court what the procedures were under Rule 56 so that he would have known how to better oppose the motion. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have rejected this argument[1] while other circuits have taken a different view.[2] We adopt the rule of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits that particularized additional notice of the potential consequences of a summary judgment motion and the right to submit opposing affidavits need not be afforded a pro se litigant. The notice afforded by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules are, in our view, sufficient. To adopt any other rule would make it impossible to determine precisely what notice was adequate in a given case.

6

The several other arguments raised by the Appellant are likewise without merit.

7

AFFIRMED.

1

Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir.1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-67 (9th Cir.1986)

2

Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C.Cir.1992); Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir.1988); Brown v. Shinbaum, 828 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir.1987); Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir.1982); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975)