IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11165

THOMAS SAWYER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendant-Appellee

--------------

CONSOLIDATED WITH 14-11164

THOMAS SAWYER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICECORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, 

 Defendant - Appellee

-------------------

CONSOLIDATED WITH 14-11174

THOMAS SAWYER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11165 Document: 00513319751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-11165

c/w No. 14-11164 & 

c/w No. 14-11174

2

DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DAVID POTTER, Doctor Allred Unit; 

RICHARD E. WATHEN, Warden Allred Unit; TOMMY NORWOOD, Health 

Administrator Allred Unit; JAMES D. ANDERS, Assistant Warden Allred 

Unit, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CV-265

USDC No. 7:13-CV-90

USDC No. 7:13-CV-143

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Sawyer, Texas prisoner # 579557, moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) in three consolidated appeals from the Wichita Falls and 

Lubbock Divisions of the district court. He also moves for appointment of 

counsel on appeal. All three cases involved the same or similar claims against 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and prison officials under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, on our own motion, if 

necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The 30-day 

deadline for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case is statutory, 28 U.S.C. 

 

* 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.

 Case: 14-11165 Document: 00513319751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-11165

c/w No. 14-11164 & 

c/w No. 14-11174

3

§ 2107(c), and thus “a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007). Sawyer’s appeals from the Wichita Division are untimely. 

Even if we treat Sawyer’s motion for “reconsideration” in case 

No. 14-11174 as a motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) that tolled the running of the 30-day deadline until the 

disposition of the motion on April 7, 2014, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), 

Sawyer’s notice of appeal filed, at the earliest, on June 9, 2014, would still be 

late. Also, Sawyer’s motions for “rehearing and reconsideration or appeal” did 

not “clearly evince his intent to appeal.” Mosley, 813 F.3d at 660 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we DISMISS Sawyer’s 

appeal No. 14-11174 for lack of jurisdiction.

Sawyer moved to dismiss his other Wichita Falls case voluntarily, and 

the district court closed it administratively under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Even if we assume for the sake of argument that such 

a disposition is appealable, but see, e.g., Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 

F.3d 356, 364 (5th Cir. 2013) (Jolly, J., dissenting), Sawyer’s notice of appeal 

several months later was untimely. We therefore DISMISS Sawyer’s appeal 

No. 14-11164 for lack of jurisdiction.

Sawyer’s appeal from the Lubbock Division must also be dismissed, 

albeit for a different reason. The district court denied Sawyer’s IFP motion on 

two grounds: (1) that the three-strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred 

Sawyer from appealing IFP because he failed to show that he was in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury and (2) that the appeal was not taken in good 

faith under § 1915(a)(3) “for the reasons stated in” the district court’s prior 

orders that dismissed all of Sawyer’s claims for failure to comply with court 

orders and that denied relief from the judgment. Sawyer’s IFP motion 

 Case: 14-11165 Document: 00513319751 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-11165

c/w No. 14-11164 & 

c/w No. 14-11174

4

addresses the first finding but not the second. Although this court liberally 

construes pro se briefs, “even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to 

preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Sawyer 

has “effectively abandoned” the necessary showing for leave to appeal IFP. Id.;

see Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that an 

IFP motion “must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the 

certification decision”). Moreover, Sawyer has failed to identify “legal points 

arguable on their merits” regarding the dismissal of his claims for failure to 

comply with court orders or the denial of relief from the judgment of dismissal. 

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

and citation omitted); see also Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 (noting that the merits 

of the appeal may be “so intertwined with the certification decision as to 

constitute the same issue”). Accordingly, we DENY Sawyer’s IFP motion and 

DISMISS his appeal No. 14-11165 as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We also DENY Sawyer’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Ulmer 

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

APPEALS DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND 

IN PART AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 14-11165 Document: 00513319751 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/23/2015