eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-10

Otis Hall v. Laurie Briser ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-31041      Document: 00515614518         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/23/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 23, 2020
No. 19-31041                    Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                       Clerk
Otis Hall,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Laurie Reis Briser; Chris Cagnolatti; Madison Parish
Detention Center; Department of Corrections,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-1181
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Otis Hall appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, on the basis of judicial immunity, and as barred by Heck
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-31041      Document: 00515614518            Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/23/2020
No. 19-31041
v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477 
    (1994). Construed liberally, Hall’s brief does
nothing more than reiterate his claims against three of the four defendants
without addressing the basis for the district court’s denial of his claims
against these entities or discussing his claims against the fourth defendant,
the Department of Corrections, at all.
Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner,
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to
preserve them, Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Hall’s
failure to address the district court’s basis for denial as to his claims “without
even the slightest identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or
its application to [his] suit . . . is the same as if he had not appealed that
judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    ,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED; motion for extraordinary relief DENIED.
2