United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50585

Bruce Randol Merryman, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Texas Board of Pardons and Parole; David Gutierrez, 

Director, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole; Fred 

Soliz, Parole Voter, San Antonio Board Office; 

Anthony Ramirez, Parole Voter, San Antonio Board 

Office; Charles Speir, Parole Voter, San Antonio 

Board Office, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:19-CV-333

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50585 Document: 00515606405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2020
No. 19-50585

2

Bruce Randol Merryman, Texas prisoner # 1730381, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. By 

moving to proceed IFP, Merryman is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into Merryman’s good faith “is 

limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

The district court concluded that Merryman’s claims were barred by 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Eleventh Amendment sovereign 

immunity, and absolute immunity. The district court further concluded that 

Merryman had failed to raise a viable Thirteenth Amendment claim and that 

his sole remedy was to file a writ of habeas corpus. Merryman fails to address 

any of these conclusions. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an 

appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the 

same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas

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

Because Merryman has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect 

of the district court’s disposition of the claims raised in his complaint or the 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the 

critical issue of his appeal. See id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See 

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, Merryman’s IFP motion is 

DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is 

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. The 

district court’s dismissal of Merryman’s complaint and our dismissal of this 

appeal both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015). Merryman is CAUTIONED that 

Case: 19-50585 Document: 00515606405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2020
No. 19-50585

3

if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any 

civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Case: 19-50585 Document: 00515606405 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2020