Court Opinion

ID: 9905746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:43.105372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.322348
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10861        Document: 00516982594             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10861
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 29, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Bueford James Friemel,                                                             Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Randall County Sheriff,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:23-CV-95
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff-Appellant, Bueford James Friemel, proceeding pro se, appeals
   the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his complaint for
   failure to comply with a court order to amend his complaint. We AFFIRM.
         Plaintiff filed a complaint against “Randall County Sheriffs” for civil
   rights violations and defamation. He alleged that on June 11, 2022, Randall

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10861          Document: 00516982594                 Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                               No. 23-10861

   County Sheriffs illegally removed a fence on his property and forced him to
   move twenty-five vehicles off the property. He contends that he lived on the
   property for twenty-five years and operated a mechanic shop on the property
   for seventeen years. After filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application
   to proceed in forma pauperis, which the district court denied. In the order
   denying his application, the district court noted that Plaintiff failed to identify
   “by name the defendant to this lawsuit or pa[y] court costs.” The court
   consequently ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint to identify the
   defendant by name and pay court costs on or before July 17, 2023. On
   August 4, 2023, noting that Plaintiff had not amended his complaint, the
   district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to comply with
   its order.
          Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a district
   court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the plaintiff fails to comply with
   court orders.” 1 This Court reviews such dismissals for abuse of discretion. 2
   “A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an
   erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
   evidence.” 3
          Plaintiff does not argue that the district court abused its discretion or
   otherwise erred in dismissing his complaint under Rule 41(b). His appellate
   brief appears to concern a different case he filed in district court that was
   dismissed without prejudice for failure to show good cause for not serving
   defendants in a timely manner. Plaintiff appealed that dismissal, and this

          _____________________
          1
              Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (citation omitted).
          2
              Id. at 441 (citation omitted).
          3
              Thomas v. Hughes, 27 F.4th 995, 1006 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

                                                    2
Case: 23-10861          Document: 00516982594             Page: 3       Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                           No. 23-10861

   Court affirmed on July 28, 2023. 4 He also argues the merits of his claim that
   state officials unlawfully moved the boundary line of his property and forced
   him to move vehicles off the property.
           Although this Court liberally construes pro se briefs, “pro se parties
   must still brief the issues.” 5 Because Plaintiff fails to challenge the basis for
   the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), Plaintiff has waived the issue,
   and thus, in effect, has not appealed the judgment. 6 Accordingly, the district
   court’s without-prejudice dismissal is AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           4
               Friemel v. Deleon, No. 23-10172, 2023 WL 4837889 (5th Cir. July 28, 2023).
           5
            Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
   225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be preserved.”).
           6
            Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)
   (holding that appellant’s failure to identify any error in the basis for the district court’s
   judgment “is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”).

                                                 3