Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11089/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patsy Bell
Appellee
Andre William Hurrey
Appellant
State of Texas
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11089

Summary Calendar

ANDRE WILLIAM HURREY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PATSY BELL; Warden Tulia Unit, in her personal capacity only; STATE OF

TEXAS, in its personal capacity only,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CV-137

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Andre William Hurrey, Texas prisoner # 1413337, appeals the district

court's dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with

prejudice as frivolous and without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. PRO.

12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim. Hurrey seeks to have his § 1983

complaint reinstated and raises numerous issues on appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 2, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 09-11089 Document: 00511191461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
No. 09-11089

Hurrey failed to raise the majority of his arguments before the district

court. This court generally does not address arguments raised for the first time

on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc.,

200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000) (“It is a bedrock principle of appellate

review that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.”).

Moreover, Hurrey fails to brief any argument regarding the district court’s

dismissal of his § 1983 complaint as frivolous in part, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

in part, and for failure to state a claim in part. Failure to identify any error in

the district court’s analysis 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 (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).

Therefore, Hurrey has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal

of his civil rights complaint. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. This appeal is

without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

This court’s dismissal of Hurrey’s appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387

(5th Cir. 1996). Hurrey should be cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes

he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 09-11089 Document: 00511191461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010