United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30884

Summary Calendar

____________

Michael Rhodes, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

State of Louisiana, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:23-CV-486

______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Rhodes, Louisiana prisoner #364469, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to 

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The district court determined that: 

(1) Rhodes’ challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction failed to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted since such a challenge in federal 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30884 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2024
No. 23-30884

2

court had to be brought in a petition for habeas corpus relief; and (2) to the 

extent he sought money damages, such relief was unavailable until he first 

demonstrated the invalidity of his conviction through a proper channel. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 488-90 (1973). 

This Court’s review of the district court’s dismissal of Rhodes’ 

complaint for failure to state a claim is de novo. Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 

207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016). Under § 1915A, a district court is required to 

screen a prisoner’s civil complaint and to dismiss it if it “(1) is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) 

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

§ 1915A(b). 

Rhodes’ appeal elaborates on the claims in his district court 

complaint—that less than a quorum of grand jurors voted to return his 

indictment, and that his conviction was based on a nonunanimous petit jury 

verdict. But his appeal does not challenge the district court’s reasons for 

dismissing his complaint. Although this Court “liberally construe[s] the 

briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to 

be preserved.” Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoted

case omitted). Rhodes’ failure to identify any error with the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his case “is the same as if he had not appealed that 

judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Even if Rhodes presented a challenge to the district court’s judgment, 

we discern no error. Rhodes’ claims challenge the constitutionality of his 

conviction, and “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner 

who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 

481. Additionally, to the extent Rhodes’ claims seek monetary relief, he 

Case: 23-30884 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2024
No. 23-30884

3

cannot bring such claims until his conviction “has been reversed on direct 

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal 

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 487.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30884 Document: 31-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/06/2024