Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0829-01.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

John Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-10518 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 4, 2018
    John Lee Johnson, Pro Se
    Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Lee Johnson, Texas prisoner # 659223, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in which he maintained that he was denied previously earned time- credits and that the denial of those credits affected his right to be released to mandatory supervision. This court granted a COA on a single issue — whether the district court correctly dismissed with prejudice the application for failure to prosecute. Johnson v. Davis, No. 16-10518 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2017).

This court’s review is limited to issues for which a COA has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1998); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). While pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief claims in order to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).

Johnson has failed to address the procedural issue of whether the district court properly dismissed his § 2254 application for failure to prosecute. He has instead briefed the merits of his claim that his due process rights were violated because he was denied good-time credits. Because Johnson has not addressed the only issue upon which a COA was granted, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.