### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-20033 Summary Calendar

SABINA MUHAMMED Plaintiff-Appellant
v. DR. LIBBY BARLOW, Executive Director of Institutional Research, University of Houston Central Campus Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

U.S.D.C. No. 4:11-cv-3852

Before STEWART, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant, Sabin a Muhammed, who is proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’ s di s mi s s al of h er cl aims against Defendant-Appellee, Dr. Libby Barlow, a University of Houston (“UH”) official. For the reasons provided below, we DISMISS Muhammed’s appeal. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-20033 Document: 00511982353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2012No. 12-20033 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Muhammed was a graduate student at UH, and was employed as a tutor at nearby Lone Star College (“LSC”). She was convicted in Texas state court of

a misdemeanor breach of compute r s e c u r it y, under Section 33.02 of the Texas P e n al Code, for the unauthorized access of the electronic records of fel l o w U H students from a p ub l ic computer terminal in an LSC computer lab. See Muhammed v. State , 331 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (affirming Muhammed’s criminal conviction). II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 1, 2 0 1 1 , M u hammed filed suit, pro se, against Barlow. Besides the instant litigation, Muhammed has initiated four other pr o s e civil lawsuits pertaining to the c o operation of UH and LSC officials in her criminal prosecution. We briefly describe each of these lawsuits. A. Muhammed v. University of Houston In Muhammed v. University of Houston (“Muhammed Civ I ”), No. 4:10-cv-2382 (S.D. Tex.), Muhammed alleged, inter alia , that UH and its officials discriminated against her as a Muslim of Paki s t a n i o r i gin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Title VII of the Civi l Ri gh ts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (2006). She also asserted that UH o f f i c i a l s, including Barlow, violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 2 0 U.S.C. § 1232g (2006), and perjured thems e lv e s a t her criminal trial, but provided minimal elabo r a t i on for these allegations. On November 4, 2010, the district court stayed Muhammed Civ I pending the exhaustion of Muhammed’s appeals of her criminal conviction. The litigation remains pending. B. Muhammed v. Office of Registration and Academic Records In Muhammed v. Office of Registrat i on and Academic Records (“Muhammed Civ II

”), No. 4:11-cv-0015 (S.D. Tex.), Muhammed elaborated on

2 Case: 12-20033 Document: 00511982353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2012No. 12-20033

the UH officials’ alleged FERPA violations. However, on February 16, 2011, the district court dismissed the litigation as duplicative of Muhammed Civ I

. C. Muhammed v. Texas In Muhammed v. Texas (“Muhammed Civ III ”), No. 4:11-cv-1709 (S.D. Tex.), Muhammed alleged that the Open Records Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General had failed to act on an admi n i s t r a t ive request she had made concerning UH’s alleged FERPA violatio n s . On August 1, 2011, the district cour t di s m issed the litigation for failure to state a claim. This court affirmed Mu h a m m e d Civ III on June 26, 2012. See No. 11-20601, 2012 WL 2402013 (5th Cir. Jun. 26, 2012) (per curiam). D. Muhammed v. Lone Star College System In Muhamme d v . L o ne Star College System (“Muhammed Civ IV ”), No. 4:10-cv-23 8 1 (S.D. Tex.), Muhammed raised similar allegations to those in Muha m m e d Ci v I

, but this time against LSC and its officials. She also elaborated on her p er

j ury allegations, specifically alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1622 and 1623 (2006). Finally, Muhammed alleged that LSC officials had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2006), which governs the interception and disclosure of electronic communications. On August 10, 2011, the district court dismissed Muhammed Civ IV for failure to state a claim. Muhammed appealed on August 23, 2011, but this court dismissed her appeal for failure to prosecute on February 8, 2012. See Muhammed Civ IV , 460 Fed. App’x 341 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). E. Muhammed v. Barlow In the instant litigation, Muhammed v. Barlow (“Muhammed Civ V ”), No. 4:11-cv-3852 (S.D. Tex

. ) , Muhammed repeats her various allegations from the earlier lawsuits, but specifically names Barlow as the captioned defendant. On December 28, 2011, the district court dismissed Muhammed’s claim s as duplicative of her earlier lawsuits. The district court di s m i s s e d those claims that overlap with Muhammed Civ I without prejudice because that litigation
3 Case: 12-20033 Document: 00511982353 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2012No. 12-20033

remains pendi ng, but dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice as res judicata. In a separate order, issued on the same date, the district court barred Muhammed from filing further suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas without the court’s written consent. Muha m m e d timely appealed. III. DISCUSSION “In all instances of failure to prosecute an appeal to hearing as required, the court may take such other action as it deems approp r i a t e .” 5th Cir. R. 42.3.3. An “appellant’s b r i e f m u s t contain

. . . [an] argument, which must contain [the] appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them

. . . for each issue,

a concise statement of the applicable standard of review

. . . [and] a s h o rt conclusion stating the precise relief sought.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). “[W]hen [an] appellant fails

. . . to comply with the ru l e s o f the court, the clerk must dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.” 5th Cir. R. 42.3.2. Muhammed’s present appeal is comparable to her appeal in Muhammed Civ IV , which this court dismissed for failure to prosecute. In our February 8, 2012 opinion, we explained that “[a]lthough we ‘liberally construe’ the filings of
pro se litigants and ‘apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel,’ pro se appellants must still comply with the principles of appellate procedure.” Muhammed Civ IV , 460 Fed. App’x at 342 (quoting Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). We summarized the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which govern the argument section of an appellate brief, and cautioned that “[g]eneral arguments without citations to any error are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal.” Id. (citing Brinkmann v. Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)). Here, Muhammed’s ap p ell at e b rief sets out four arguments. Muhammed’s first three arguments expressly “repeat and re-allege[]” the various allegations

4 Case: 12-20033 Document: 00511982353 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/11/2012No. 12-20033

contained in Muhammed’s trial-l evel p leadings. See Pl.-Appellant’s Br. at 12-14. Her fourth and final argument submits that the trial court’s dismissal was “not acceptable due to th e s e r iousness and magnitude of the case,” but provides no further elaboration. See id. at 14. As we observed in Muhammed Ci v IV , an appellate brief that does not identify a single specific district court error is, in practical effect, the same as no appellate brief at all. 460 F e d

. App’x at 342 (citing Grant , 59 F.3d at 525; Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748). Accordingly, Muhammed’s appellate brief is insufficient for her to maintain her appeal. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Muhammed’s app eal for failure to prosecute.

5 Case: 12-20033 Document: 00511982353 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/11/2012