Derrick Coleman v. Halcon Resources Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 13, 2018
• Docket: 18-30488
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-30488 Document: 00514760311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2018

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

No. 18-30488 FILED Summary Calendar December 13, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DERRICK COLEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HALCON RESOURCES CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:15-CV-2086

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Derrick Coleman, proceeding pro se, brings this appeal following the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Halcon Resources Corporation. Coleman does not appeal that decision, which the district court entered in March 2018. Instead, his appeal concerns the withdrawal of his attorney, which the district court approved two years earlier, in March 2016. Liberally

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-30488 Document: 00514760311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2018

No. 18-30488 construed, Coleman’s brief asserts a Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel in his civil action against Halcon and a right to an adversarial hearing against counsel seeking withdrawal. Coleman did not present either argument to the district court. Rather than challenge his attorney’s withdrawal, Coleman proceeded pro se for the remainder of the litigation. “Under this Circuit’s general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” AG Acceptance Corp. v. Veigel, 564 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San Juan, 90 F.3d 910, 916 (5th Cir. 1996)). Coleman has not argued that extraordinary circumstances exist here. Accordingly, we decline to consider Coleman’s new arguments on appeal. AFFIRMED.