# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 Off**  **ice,**

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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 19, 2020

Lyle W. Ca yce Clerk Case: 19-50585 Document: 00515606405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2020No. 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 co urt’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 20 2 (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 liber al 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 appea l. 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
dist rict cour t’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: 10/19/2020No. 19

- 50585

3 if he accumulates three strikes, he wil l 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