IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20456

Summary Calendar

VALLIRE OZENE; LYNDON GRANGER; LATOYA JERNIGAN,

Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY PROTECTIVE SERVICES; AMBER

JERNIGAN; WANDA MILES; CLAUDIA ANN JACKSON; TASHA

RODGERS; LATASHA ALLEN; DAISY CLARK,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-245

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Vallire Ozene, Lyndon Granger, and Latoya Jernigan (Appellants) sued

the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (TDFPS) and several

TDFPS officials (collectively the State Defendants), and other individuals

unaffiliated with the state of Texas. The case appears to stem from a dispute

over the custody of two minor children, S.J. and T.J. Both children were subject

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 23, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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: 10-20456 Document: 00511331071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2010
No. 10-20456

to writs of attachment in Texas state court naming the TDFPS as their

temporary managing conservator. The Appellants claimed in their lawsuit that

the various defendants conspired to fabricate false allegations against the

Appellants in order to terminate the Appellants’ custodial rights over S.J. and

T.J. The complaint included allegations that the defendants violated the Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and sought relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The Appellants requested damages in the amount of

$100 million, as well as the possession of S.J. and T.J.

The State Defendants moved for dismissal of the Appellants’ suit, and the

district court dismissed the case, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), after it

determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the district

court concluded that the Appellants’ suit was an attempt to modify the terms of

state-court child custody orders, and that both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and

1

the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction applied to limit the

2

court’s jurisdiction. The Appellants, proceeding pro se, now appeal.

We consider at the outset whether the Appellants have abandoned all

issues on appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require that an

appellant’s brief contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

relies.” “Failure adequately to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver of

3

that argument.” Moreover, “[a]lthough pro se briefs are to be liberally

4

See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 1

U.S. 413 (1923).

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (“[T]he domestic relations 2

exception . . . divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody

decrees.”).

 FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). 3

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004).

4

2

Case: 10-20456 Document: 00511331071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2010
No. 10-20456

construed, pro se litigants have no general immunity from the rule that issues

and arguments not briefed on appeal are abandoned.”

5

In their brief, the Appellants simply provide a list of the rights that they

claim have been violated in their case, as well as a list of citations to cases

addressing whether qualified immunity is available for state officials who

commit constitutional violations when removing children from the custody of

their parents. The district court did not dismiss the Appellants’ suit on qualified

immunity grounds, however, and the Appellants utterly fail to address the

district court’s decision to apply the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the domestic

relations exception to this case. Because the Appellants point to no specific error

in the district court’s order, we hold that the Appellants have abandoned all

issues on appeal.

6

AFFIRMED.

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citation omitted);

5

see also United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[W]hile we

construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”).

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that “arguments must

6

be briefed to be preserved” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

3

Case: 10-20456 Document: 00511331071 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2010