Court Opinion

ID: 9382764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 18:00:33.384611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.446628
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60471        Document: 00516691609             Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/28/2023

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

                                                                               FILED
                                                                         March 28, 2023
                                       No. 22-60471                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk

   Bessie Moore,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Jackson Public School District,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

             Appeal from the United States United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 3:21-CV-00531

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Bessie Moore, a longtime employee of the Jackson Public School
   District (“JPSD”), brought multiple lawsuits against JPSD which we title
   Moore I, Moore II, and Moore III. The district court granted JPSD’s motions
   for summary judgment on Moore’s retaliation claims in Moore I and Moore II,
   and this court has affirmed those orders. See Moore v. Jackson Public School

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60471       Document: 00516691609           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                      No. 22-60471

   District, No. 22-60376. The district court also granted JPSD’s motion to
   dismiss in Moore III, which is the subject of this appeal. We AFFIRM.
                                 Procedural Background
          Moore named JPSD, the JPSD Board of Trustees, and JPSD
   Superintendent Dr. Errick Greene as defendants in Moore III. In Moore III,
   Moore asserted claims for sex discrimination under Title VII, age
   discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
   (“ADEA”), retaliation under both Title VII and the ADEA, disparate impact
   discrimination claims under both Title VII and the ADEA, and another
   undifferentiated “§ 1983” claim. The district court granted JPSD’s motion
   to dismiss in its entirety.
                                      Discussion
          Moore, who is proceeding pro se, lays out several assertions in her brief
   but includes no citations to the record as required by the rules. The Federal
   Rules of Appellate Procedure require parties to provide references to the
   page numbers of the record to support statements of fact. Fed. R. App. P.
   28(a)(6) and (8)(A); see also 5th Cir. R. 28.2.2. Failure to comply with the
   rules of this Court regarding the contents of briefs can be grounds for dis-
   missing a party’s claims. United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.
   1994) (per curiam). Dismissal is warranted where the non-compliance is not
   merely “technical or stylistic” but rather is so “fundamental” that it pre-
   vents the court from engaging in meaningful review. Owens v. Sec’y of
   Army, 354 F. App’x 156, 158 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal
   for want of prosecution on the ground that appellant’s brief “lacks any argu-
   ment in support of the issues that it raises.”); see also Clark v. Waters, 407 F.
   App’x 794, 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal on the
   grounds that appellant’s brief “is grossly non-compliant with Rule 28”). Alt-
   hough we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent

                                           2
Case: 22-60471      Document: 00516691609           Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                     No. 22-60471

   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 stand-
   ards of Rule 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnote
   omitted) (citing United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)
   (“[P]ro se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the Federal Rules of
   Appellate Procedure.”)). Accordingly, in addition to the other grounds for
   dismissal outlined below, we dismiss Moore’s appeal for gross non-compli-
   ance with the rules. See Clark, 407 F. App’x at 796.
          Furthermore, Moore’s brief does not meaningfully address the basis
   for the district court’s dismissal. As mentioned above, pro se briefs are
   liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (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). Moore’s failure to address the
   basis for the district court’s dismissal, “without even the slightest
   identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to
   [her] suit . . . is the same as if [she] had not appealed that
   judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
   748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           3