Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30825 S u m m ary C al en da r
K E L V IN W E L L S , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. D O U G W E L B O R N , C le r k o f C o u r t, 1 9 th J D C , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 3: 09- C V

- 468

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * P l a i n ti ff

–a p p ell a n t K elvin W ell s, pr oce edi ng pro se and i nfor m ap a u p er is , ap pea l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssal of hi s Fou rt een t h A m en dm en tdu e process an d equ alprot ect i on cl ai m s. W el l s al l eged t h at t h e ap pel l ee, a L ou i si an a cl erk of court , i m properl y processed hi s vari ou s peti t i on s f or rel i ef

. T h e di st ri ctcourt d ism iss e dW e ll s’s cla im s w ith p reju d ice p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 9 1 5 (e), de t e r m i ni ng t hatW e l l s fail e d t o st at e ac l ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f c an be g r ant e d. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30825 Document: 00511020585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 09- 30825

2 In his bri ef

i n g t o this cou rt , W el l s fai l s to i den t i f y an y errori n t h e di st ri ct
c our t ’ s di sm i ss alof hi s c l ai m s. I nst ead W el l s m er ely r ei tera tes fac t ual
a lle g a tio n s a n dg e n e r a liz e ds ta te m e n ts o f th e la w . “A lth o u g h w e lib e r a lly
co n str u e b rie fs o f pro se l i t i gan t s an d app l y l ess st ri n gen t st an da rds t o parti es pro c ee di ng pro se . . . , pro sep a r tie s m u s t s till b r ie f th e is s u e s a n dre a s o n a b ly
com p l y w i th the stan d a rd s of R u l e 2 8
. ” G r antv . Cue l lar , 59 F
. 3 d52 3 , 52 4 ( 5 th C ir .1 9 9 5 ). S ee als o F ED . R. A PP . P. 28 (r e quir i ng an ap pe l l ant ’ s br i e f t o c o nt ai n, a m o n g o th e r th in g s , a s ta te m e n t of th e is s u e s a n da n a r g u m e n t); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi lkes , 20 F
. 3 d65 1 , 65 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 4 ) (“ [P] ro sel i t i gan t s, l i ke allot h er p a r tie s , m u s t a b id e b yth e F e d e r a l R u le s o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e .”). B eca u se W ell s fa i l s to pr op erly a r g u e or p rese n t i ssu es in h i s ap p ell a te b r ie f, w e c o n s id e rt h o s e is s u e s t o b e a b a n d o n e d
. Uni t e d St at e s v . Be aum o nt , 972 F .2 d5 5 3 , 5 6 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Pr i c ev . D igi t alEqui p. Cor p. , 846 F. 2d 1026, 1028 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ) (“[A]r g u m e n ts m u s t b e b r ie fe d to b e p r e s e rv e d .”). B e c a u s e W e lls has a ba ndo ne d a l li s s ue s o n a ppe al , W e l l s ’ s a pp e a li s w i t ho uta r gua bl e m e r i ta nd is th u s fr iv o lo u s . S e eNe ws o mev . EEO C , 3 0 1 F
. 3d 227, 233 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is D IS M IS S E D
. S ee 5 T H C IR . R . 4 2 .2
. D IS M IS S E D
. Case: 09-30825 Document: 00511020585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010