Court Opinion

ID: 9392389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 18:00:27.07231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.690071
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50579         Document: 00516737914             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-50579                                   May 4, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   Reginald Harris,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   FNU Watson, Hillsboro Police Officer; Vernon Busby, Hill County
   Sheriff Deputy; Officer Rogers,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CV-1216
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Reginald Harris, proceeding pro se, sued Officer Watson, Deputy
   Busby, and Officer Rogers (collectively “Defendants”), asserting they
   violated the Constitution and federal and state law when they arrested him in
   February 2021. The district court dismissed Harris’s constitutional and
   federal law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50579       Document: 00516737914             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                        No. 22-50579

   subsequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his
   remaining state law claims.
          Harris appears to raise two main issues on appeal. Though his brief is
   difficult to parse, he seems to argue that the district court erred in dismissing
   his claims because (1) it failed to rule on his “Motion for Prohibitory
   Injunction and Immunity,” filed January 14, 2022, and (2) he sufficiently
   pleaded that Defendants committed a variety of state and federal law
   violations when they arrested and detained him.
          Harris’s first argument is without merit. Even assuming the district
   court was required to rule on Harris’s request, “[t]he denial of a motion by
   the district court, although not formally expressed, may be implied by the
   entry of a final judgment or of an order inconsistent with the granting of the
   relief sought by the motion.” Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021
   (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s order dismissing Harris’s case under
   Rule 12(b)(6) is inconsistent with his request for release and immunity from
   criminal trial on the grounds that he was “unlawful[ly] arrested.” Therefore,
   the district court “implicitly denied that request and thereby satisfied its
   duty, if any, to issue a ruling.” Peña v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, N.A., 807 F.
   App’x 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). 1
          Harris has inadequately briefed, and thus abandoned, all other points
   of error. Even construed generously, his brief at most provides a few
   conclusory     assertions     that    Defendants      committed       statutory    and
   constitutional violations. He wholly fails, however, to explain how or why the
   district court erred in dismissing his claims.             Under our precedents,

          _____________________
          1
             Although Peña and other unpublished opinions cited herein are “not controlling
   precedent,” they “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d
   391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).

                                                  2
Case: 22-50579          Document: 00516737914             Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                          No. 22-50579

   neglecting to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal amounts to a
   failure to appeal the underlying judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
   224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
   F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Holman v. Collier, 830 F. App’x 738,
   738–39 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (observing that “even pro se litigants
   must brief arguments in order to preserve them”).
          Along the same lines, Harris’s brief is grossly non-compliant with the
   Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. While his brief is replete with legal
   jargon and irrelevant jurisdictional statements, he fails to set forth any record
   cites, specific facts, or relevant authorities supporting his position. See, e.g.,
   Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6), (a)(8)(A). While we construe the briefs of pro
   se litigants liberally, they nonetheless “must abide by the Federal Rules of
   Appellate Procedure.” United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.
   1994) (per curiam). Such fundamental failure to properly present and argue
   any points of error precludes us from engaging in meaningful review. See,
   e.g., Clark v. Waters, 407 F. App’x 794, 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
   (affirming dismissal because appellant’s brief “[was] grossly non-compliant”
   with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). Accordingly, we deem
   Harris’s arguments on appeal abandoned. Id.; see also United States v.
   Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
          We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Harris’s
   claims. 2

          _____________________
          2
               Motion to appoint counsel is denied.

                                                      3