Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11260/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LaCinda Sarika Darien
Appellant
Jody Upton
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11260

Summary Calendar

LACINDA SARIKA DARIEN,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JODY UPTON,

Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-905

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

LaCinda Sarika Darien, federal prisoner # 71590-279, appeals the denial 

of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein she sought release from the 18-month 

sentence she is serving following her conviction in the Northern District of 

Georgia of failure to surrender. She argues that, because the Bureau of Prisons 

staff members at Federal Medical Center Carswell have been deliberately 

indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of her constitutional rights, 

 

* 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

August 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11260 Document: 00513141060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2015
No. 14-11260

2

she should be granted compassionate release so that she may obtain necessary 

medical care. Darien need not obtain a certificate of appealability in this case. 

See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Darien’s impassioned plea for release does not address the reasons 

behind the district court’s dismissal of her § 2241 petition. Although pro se 

briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-

21 (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). By failing to identify 

error in the district court’s basis for dismissing her § 2241 petition, Darien has 

abandoned any appellate challenge she might have raised regarding the 

decision. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); Brinkmann 

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Because Darien’s appeal presents no legal points arguable on their merits, the 

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-11260 Document: 00513141060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2015