HALL v. BRISER (2020)

Otis Hall appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, on the basis of judicial immunity, and as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Construed liberally, Hall's brief does nothing more than reiterate his claims against three of the four defendants without addressing the basis for the district court's denial of his claims against these entities or discussing his claims against the fourth defendant, the Department of Corrections, at all.

Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, see 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). Hall's failure to address the district court's basis for denial as to his claims “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the court's] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit ․ is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; motion for extraordinary relief DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.