PALMA v. TEXAS (2020)

Michael-Francis Palma appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he sought damages and other relief for violations of his civil rights in connection with the collection of property taxes. The district court dismissed the action after finding that Palma failed to prosecute his claim and failed to comply with a court order.

The pro se brief filed by Palma does not address the sole issue on appeal, which is whether the district court erred by dismissing his complaint for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, it is as if he did not appeal the issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Palma has not identified any error in the district court's analysis underlying the dismissal of his civil action, his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.