Court Opinion

ID: 9370834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 19:00:36.326789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.989998
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10294        Document: 00516645298             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                              February 14, 2023
                                      No. 22-10294                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                    ____________

   Chance Marcus Clyce, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Frederick Farley, Investigator and Supervisor for Hunt County Juvenile
   Detention Center, individually and in his official capacity; Kenneth
   Wright, individually and in his official capacity; Shanigia Williams,
   individually and in her official capacity,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:15-CV-793
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Chance Marcus Clyce, proceeding pro se on appeal, filed an amended
   complaint claiming that defendants, all of whom were employees at a juvenile
   detention center where Clyce was held in 2008, violated his constitutional

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10294        Document: 00516645298           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                       No. 22-10294

   rights.     Clyce’s claims against Frederick Farley were dismissed with
   prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) (requiring dismissal
   of claims against deceased party if no motion to substitute timely filed).
   Defendants Kenneth Wright and Shanigia Williams were granted summary
   judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.
             Clyce’s brief in this court essentially recounts his version of the facts
   giving rise to his complaint, providing only one citation. Although pro se
   briefs are construed liberally, issues must be briefed to preserve them. E.g.,
   Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Clyce fails to address the
   district court’s concluding that Wright and Williams were entitled to
   qualified immunity and that his claims against Farley were subject to
   dismissal with prejudice under Rule 25(a)(1). Therefore, he has abandoned
   any challenge to those rulings. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (“We will not raise and discuss legal
   issues that [appellant] has failed to assert.”); see also Fed. R. App. P.
   28(a)(8) (appellant’s brief must contain his contentions and citations to
   authority).
             To the extent he contends the court improperly viewed the facts and
   drew inferences in favor of defendants, see Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657
   (2014) (court must resolve disputed issues in favor of non-movant), those
   contentions are unsupported by the record. See Renfroe v. Parker, 974 F.3d
   594, 599 (5th Cir. 2020) (no error where non-movant “did not offer any
   competent evidence of her own alleged facts”). Nor does the record support
   Clyce’s assertion that the district court perfunctorily dismissed his case as
   frivolous at the first opportunity to do so. Finally, we need not review
   Clyce’s claim that his former attorney rendered ineffective assistance. E.g.,

                                             2
Case: 22-10294     Document: 00516645298           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10294

   Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986) (“right to
   effective assistance of counsel does not apply to civil proceedings”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3