Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20484/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Correctional Association
Appellee
Bolton
Appellee
Jane Doe
Appellee
Billy Hirsch
Appellee
Brad Livingston
Appellee
Kevin Mayfield
Appellee
Robert Troy McClure
Appellant
Jacquille Reed
Appellee
Victor Ross
Appellee
Spivey
Appellee
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Appellee
Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20484

Summary Calendar

ROBERT TROY MCCLURE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Warden KEVIN MAYFIELD; JANE DOE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Agency of State of Texas; BRAD LIVINGSTON, 

Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Major WATSON; 

BILLY HIRSCH, Senior Warden; Lieutenant BOLTON; AMERICAN 

CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION; Lieutenant SPIVEY; JACQUILLE REED; 

VICTOR ROSS, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-3260

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Troy McClure, Texas prisoner # 1420457, while housed in the 

Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional 

Institutions Division (TDCJ-ID), filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 13-20484 Document: 00513106191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-20484

2

warden, the “safe prison” officer, and the TDCJ-ID. After the district court 

revoked McClure’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status, it granted these defendants’ 

motion to dismiss and denied McClure’s motions to amend his complaint.

McClure argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking 

his IFP status and dismissing his case because the filing fee was not paid. 

Although there is no indication in the record that McClure paid the filing fee, 

there is also no indication that the district court dismissed the complaint for 

failure to pay the fee. Accordingly, we do not address whether the district court 

erred in revoking McClure’s IFP status.

The district court dismissed the claims against the defendants due to 

various legal doctrines and on Eleventh Amendment immunity. McClure’s 

failure to brief the validity of those grounds abandons his challenge to the 

district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss. See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty.

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs 

are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in 

order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

McClure argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying 

his motion to amend the complaint that he filed on April 4, 2013. We do not 

address this argument. In his motion for an extension of time to respond to 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss, McClure specifically asked the court to 

“disregard all motions to amend [his] complaint” and stated, “I withdraw the 

motions to amend the complaints.”

The judgment is AFFIRMED. McClure’s motion to strike the appellees

response brief as untimely is DENIED. Appellees received an extension for 

filing until September 9, 2014, and their brief was filed that day. McClure’s 

motion to accept his reply brief is GRANTED. That brief was considered.

Case: 13-20484 Document: 00513106191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015