Moore v. Jackson Public Sch Dist ( 2023 )

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