United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-40150 

Summary Calendar 

John T. Patrick, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Jennifer Herbst; Ray A. Guevara; Francisco Olvera, Jr.; 

Warden Evelyn Castro; Philip Sifuentes; Andrew H. 

Nino; Michelle D. Esparza, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:19-CV-65 

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

John T. Patrick, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the 

dismissal of his prisoner civil rights action alleging retaliation and violations 

of his rights to due process and equal protection, and seeking injunctive relief 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 31, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40150 Document: 00516527213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2022
No. 22-40150 

2 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a Spears1 hearing, the district court 

narrowed Patrick’s claims to only some of those for retaliation and equal 

protection violations while also maintaining Patrick’s request for injunctive 

relief. The district court later granted summary judgment for the 

Defendants-Appellees after holding that Patrick’s remaining retaliation and 

equal protection claims were barred because Defendants-Appellees were 

entitled to qualified immunity and that his request for injunctive relief was 

moot. 

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo under the same 

standard applied by the district court.” City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 420 

F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). On appeal, Patrick fails to adequately address 

the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant abandoned 

arguments “by failing to argue them in the body of his brief”); Fed. R. App. 

P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“The appellant’s brief must contain . . . the argument, which 

must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with 

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

relies.”). Patrick does not identify any error in the court’s application of the 

law. Instead, Patrick employs the relevant legal standards to make conclusory 

assertions that he overcame his burden on summary judgment. “Although 

we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that 

arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 

F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Because Patrick has 

abandoned his arguments due to the inadequacy of his briefing, see Yohey, 985 

F.2d at 224–25, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.2

1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 

2

 Patrick also challenges the procedure by which Defendants-Appellees filed their 

motion for summary judgment. On December 2, 2020, Defendants-Appellees filed a 

Case: 22-40150 Document: 00516527213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2022
motion for summary judgment. On April 28, 2021, the district court denied the motion, 

holding that it “fail[ed] to adequately present the legal and factual issues to [the court],” 

and gave the parties until May 28, 2021 to “file a dispositive motion.” On May 28, 2021, 

Defendants-Appellees filed the motion that is now on appeal. Patrick has not identified any 

procedural deficiencies in this motion. Without any citations or explanation, Patrick also 

argues that the present motion recycles the arguments that the district court ruled were 

inadequate in the earlier motion that was dismissed. As with the rest of his appeal, Patrick 

has failed to sufficiently raise this argument. 

Case: 22-40150 Document: 00516527213 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2022