IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41258

LORENZO ESCUDERO, 

 Petitioner - Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, 

 Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CV-577

Before BARKSDALE, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Lorenzo Escudero challenges the dismissal without prejudice

of his claims alleging constitutional deficiencies related to both his conviction 

and the conditions of his confinement. The district court dismissed his petition 

because Escudero failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order directing 

him to specify whether his lawsuit was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

* 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

March 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41258 Document: 00515342363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 17-41258

2

or a civil rights lawsuit. Despite the Magistrate Judge’s warning the case

would be dismissed if he failed to submit either a habeas form or a 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 form within 30 days, Escudero responded only by denouncing the 

deficiency order for making unconscionable and unconstitutional demands of 

him. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 provides, “[t]he appellant’s brief 

must contain . . . a statement of the issues presented for review.” Fed. R. App. 

P. 28(a)(5). “Despite [a] policy of liberally construing briefs of pro se litigants 

and applying less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to 

parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and 

reasonably comply with the standards of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

28.” Hodge v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sheriff’s Office, 394 F. App’x 124, 126 (5th 

Cir. 2010). When a party fails to brief a claim, the court need not consider this 

claim. Id.; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)[(8)(a)] requires that the appellant’s argument contain the reasons he 

deserves the requested relief ‘with citation[s] to the authorities, [] and parts of 

the record relied on.’” (quoting Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir. 

1990))). Indeed, failing to identify an error in the district court’s legal analysis 

is the same as not appealing the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy 

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

Escudero makes no effort to contest the district court’s basis for 

dismissal. His briefing does not mention the Magistrate Judge’s decision or the 

order requiring him to fill out either a § 1983 or a habeas form. Even construing 

his argument liberally, nothing in either the initial or the supplemental brief 

can fairly be read as relating to the basis for the district court’s dismissal. 

Because Escudero has not complied with Rule 28, his appeal fails. See generally 

McGee v. Sturdivant, 628 F. App’x 317, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2016); Cooper v. 

Wilkinson, 547 F. App’x 558, 559 (5th Cir. 2013). 

 Case: 17-41258 Document: 00515342363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 17-41258

3

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-41258 Document: 00515342363 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2020