IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11351

Summary Calendar

NELSON ROMERO, also known as Richard Romero,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHNNY SAUSCEDA, Jail Administrator of Dawson County Jail; 

SERGEANT BAGBY; MRS. DAVIS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CV-228

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Nelson Romero, Texas 

prisoner # 1127658, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 

1915(e)(2)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. We review the district court’s dismissal 

de novo. See Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). 

 

* 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

December 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11351 Document: 00513319843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-11351

2

On appeal, Romero renews his claims of false charges, retaliation, denial 

of access to the courts, and wrongful confiscation and destruction of his 

personal property. Even with the benefit of very liberal construction, however, 

Romero briefs no argument challenging the reasons for the district court’s 

dismissal, instead simply reiterating the allegations made in his complaint and 

his objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Although pro se briefs are 

afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even 

pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to brief any argument challenging the 

reasons for the district court’s dismissal, Romero has abandoned the only 

grounds for appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. 

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

Romero’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore DISMISSED as 

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH 

CIR. R.42.2. His motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer 

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Both this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal and the district court’s 

dismissal of Romero’s complaint count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 

1996). Romero has previously accumulated three strikes. See Romero v. Kail, 

No. 14-10500 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2015) (unpublished) (detailing strikes and 

imposing sanction). He is again CAUTIONED that, because he now has more 

than three strikes, he will be barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or 

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 

388; § 1915(g). 

 Case: 14-11351 Document: 00513319843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-11351

3

Additionally, Romero is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, 

or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may 

include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file 

pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. He is

advised to review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any 

that are frivolous or repetitive.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

 Case: 14-11351 Document: 00513319843 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2015