Case Name: Samuel MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad LIVINGSTON; Rissi Owens; Jose Aliseda, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 351 F. App'x 865
Docket Number: No. 09-40117
Parties: Samuel MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad LIVINGSTON; Rissi Owens; Jose Aliseda, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 865–866

Head Matter:
Samuel MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad LIVINGSTON; Rissi Owens; Jose Aliseda, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-40117
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 28, 2009.
Samuel Matthews, Rosharon, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Matthews, Texas prisoner # 228600, appeals the district court's dismissal of his in pro se civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim. We review de novo the district court's dismissal. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).
Matthews argues that he stated claims of ex post facto violations, discrimination and equal protection violations, and due process violations with regard to the denial of his release on parole and the "off set" of consideration of his release on parole. He does not address the district court's determination that he failed to state a claim because his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), but even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Because Matthews does not challenge the district court's determination that his claims were barred by Heck, he has abandoned the only issue before this court. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Because Matthews fails to challenge the basis for the district court's dismissal, his appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Matthews's motion for a preliminary injunction and bond/bail pending civil proceedings is denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
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.