Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Michael SCHELLHAAS, Etc.; et al, Plaintiffs, Ronald G. Sparks, person of inherence, a res/persona ficta, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Jure Gestionis; Federal Bureau of Prisons, a fiduciary-agency; Harry Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons, a fiduciary-agent, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-50434
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 20, 2007.
    
      Ronald G. Sparks, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Robert Keith Shaw-Meadow, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ronald G. Sparks, federal prisoner # 94370-011, appeals the dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of his federal civil complaint in which he alleged, with the benefit of liberal construction, that prison officials at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution breached their “contract” with him under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Constitution, the Lieber Code, the Ethics in Government Act, and numerous other statutes, by falsely alleging that he had violated a prison disciplinary rule.

Sparks does not specifically challenge the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as moot. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. 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 Sparks has not challenged the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, he has abandoned the issue, and this court need not further address it. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

Sparks’s challenge to the transfer of venue of his complaint to the Western District of Texas also fails. The district court for the District of Columbia found that the transfer of Sparks’s complaint to the district court for the Western District of Texas would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses because Sparks, potential witnesses, and documents related to the suit were located within the jurisdiction of the court, Sparks’s potential communications with counsel would occur in or near the jurisdiction of the court, and the proximity of the court to Sparks and potential evidence suggested that the matter would be more quickly resolved in that court. Sparks has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the instant case to the district court for the Western District of Texas. See Casarez v. Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Co., 193 F.3d 334, 339 (5th Cir.1999); Tel-Phonic Services, Inc. v. TBS Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 1134, 1138 (5th Cir.1992).

Sparks also filed a “Notice of Protest” in which he argues that prison officials refused to allow the plaintiffs to communicate with one another for the purpose of preparing a joint appeal. Sparks fails to allege any harm as the result of the alleged denial of communication with his co-plaintiffs. Sparks thus lacks standing to raise this claim. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Sparks’s complaint is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.