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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41295

Summary Calendar

FELIX L HEARN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; KARL LEWIS, Chief, Paris Police Department;

STEPHEN HOLMES, Sergeant Badge 155 Paris Police Department; THOMAS

BRANDENBURGH, Patrolman Badge 209 Paris Police Department; LEIGH

FOREMAN, Patrolman Badge 225 Paris Police Department; JEFF JONES,

Sergeant Paris Police Department

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-184

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Felix L. Hearn, Texas prisoner # 1412280, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In district court, Hearn claimed:

he was improperly arrested after he was assaulted on his own property; he had

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41295

2

a right to defend himself and his family against an intruder; the arresting

officers failed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident; his

witness’ statements were not included in the state record; and he was

improperly induced to waive his right to appeal his criminal conviction. The

district court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, holding

Hearn’s claims constituted a challenge to his conviction and were barred by Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 490 (1994). Additionally, the court ruled the Paris

Police Department was not a legal entity subject to suit.

Hearn’s scant appellate brief, consisting primarily of fragments, does not

challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims. Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) requires the appellant’s brief contain his

“contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts

of the record on which the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise

statement of the applicable standard of review”. “Although we liberally construe

briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding

pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the

issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar,

59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, our court will not raise legal

issues Hearn has failed to assert; such issues are deemed abandoned. E.g.,

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

In sum, Hearn does not contend his claims did not constitute a challenge

to his conviction or that the Paris Police Department constituted a proper

defendant. His only statement that arguably raises a challenge to the district

court’s proceeding is the general assertions that the court required him to satisfy

standards and deadlines that were impossible in the light of Hearn’s

incarceration. Hearn does not provide any specifics, however, such as which

deadline he was unable to meet. 
No. 08-41295

3

Hearn’s appeal is without merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219–20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it

is dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hearn is warned: the dismissal of this appeal

counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387–88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hearn is also warned that if

he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to bring a civil action or

appeal a judgment in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of

serious physical injury”. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.