Court Opinion

ID: 9956401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 00:00:37.16007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:09.119685
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20379            Document: 60-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024

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

                                    No. 23-20379
                                                                             FILED
                                                                          April 1, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                  ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
Aisha Wright,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Transportation Communication Union/IAM,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CV-3174
                   ______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Plaintiff-Appellant, Aisha Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s judgment dismissing her claims with prejudice as barred by
res judicata. The district court determined that the four elements of res
judicata were met because (1) the parties in this case and in a prior action are
the same; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-20379           Document: 60-1          Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                        No. 23-20379

competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final
judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was
involved in both actions. See Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d
559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the four elements for establishing res
judicata). Plaintiff does not argue that the district court applied an incorrect
standard or that the district court erred in determining that the standard was
met. 1
         Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, pro se parties must still
brief the issues in order to preserve them for appellate consideration. See
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Plaintiff fails to
identify any error in the district court’s judgment applying the standard for
res judicata to the facts of this case, it “is the same as if [s]he had not appealed
that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
         Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

         _____________________
         1
           She instead argues that the prior action was erroneously dismissed due to
ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent that her argument can be construed as a
challenge to the district court’s finding that a final judgment “on the merits” was issued in
the prior action, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. In a civil case, there is no
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d
1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).

                                              2