Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0235-01.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 E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff — Appellant v. Willie E. WILLIAMS, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Chief of Police, San Diego, California Police Department; Alice Villalobos, State Bar of California, Special Investigator, Defendants — Appellees.
    No. 08-50766
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2008.
    David E. Henderson, El Paso, TX, pro se.
    Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David E. Henderson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, Henderson appears to have submitted a copy of his lower-court complaint as his appellate brief. Although we apply less stringent standards to pro se litigants and liberally construe their briefs, “pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of’ Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 regarding the requirements for an appellate brief. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, because Henderson has not briefed the issues for appeal and has not reasonably complied with the requirements of Rule 28, we DISMISS his appeal for want of prosecution. Fed. R.App. P. 42.3.2 (“[W]hen appellant fails to order the transcript, fails to file a brief, or otherwise fails to comply with the rules of the court, the clerk must dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.”); see also Grant, 59 F.3d at 524-25. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.