United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40656

Summary Calendar

____________

J. W. Seals, Jr.; Vergie Seals; Marie L. Pace, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

versus

Itex Group L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:22-CV-383

______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiffs-Appellants, J.W. Seals, Jr., Vergie Seals, and Marie L. Pace,

proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their 

complaint as failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40656 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
No. 23-40656

2

Vergie Seals, an elderly, disabled African American, was a tenant in 

an apartment building in Beaumont, Texas, owned by Defendant-Appellee,

ITEX Group, L.L.C. She and her children filed this suit seeking relief under

the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

and state law. Plaintiffs primarily alleged that the condition of Seals’s

apartment and the apartment building in general made her apartment 

uninhabitable. They alleged such conditions as structural defects, 

widespread mold, infestations of cockroaches and bedbugs, litter, blight, 

deficient security, and faulty and insufficient utilities. 

Plaintiffs argued that the deplorable conditions of the apartment made

it “unavailable” under Section 3604 (a) and (f)(1) of the FHA.

1 The district 

court, relying on this Court’s decision in Cox v. City of Dallas, Tex., 430 F.3d 

734,742-44 (5th Cir. 2005), determined that those sections of the FHA 

provide relief to persons suffering discrimination in the sale or rental of a 

dwelling, but not to persons claiming that an apartment is uninhabitable. 

Consequently, the district court granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion 

to dismiss.

Although this Court liberally construes pro se briefs, “pro se parties 

must still brief the issues.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]rguments must be 

briefed to be preserved.”). Because Plaintiffs’ appellate brief does not 

address the district court’s basis for granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, 

_____________________

1

 Defendant challenged the standing of Seals’s children, J.W. Seals, Jr., and Marie 

L. Pace, because they were not tenants in the building. The district court determined that 

their assistance to their mother and improvements to her apartment gave them standing. 

We find it unnecessary to consider this issue because Seals lived in the apartment and 

clearly has standing, and our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary for us to consider 

her children’s standing.

Case: 23-40656 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
No. 23-40656

3

they have abandoned the sole issue on appeal.2 See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that 

appellant’s failure to identify any error in the basis for the district court’s 

judgment “is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

_____________________

2

 Plaintiffs’ appellate brief also does not challenge the district court’s denial of 

their motion to amend or its denial of relief under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

Case: 23-40656 Document: 48-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2024