eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2000-02

Henderson v. Criminal Dist Court ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                              No. 99-10863
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10863
Conference Calendar
ANTONIO RENAULD HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT #3,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-435-G
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Renauld Henderson, Texas prisoner # 98060475, was a
Texas pretrial detainee at the time he filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights action.    Henderson does not address the
district court’s dismissal of his damage claim against the state
trial court and judge as frivolous.    He argues merely that he is
entitled to a trial and to confront the witnesses against him.
When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district
court’s analysis, it is as if the appellant had not appealed that
judgment.   Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-10863
-2-
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).   Although pro se briefs are
afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner,
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520-21 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in
order to preserve them.    Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).   Because Henderson did not address the district
court’s dismissal of his damages claims as frivolous, he has
abandoned the only issue before this court on appeal.    See Searcy
v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
    907 F.2d 562
    , 564 (5th Cir.
1990).   However, any claim against the state trial court is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.    See Farias v. Bexar County
Bd.,
    925 F.2d 866
    , 875 n.9 (5th Cir. 1991).   Further, the trial
judge has judicial immunity from Henderson’s damage claim.     See
Hulsey v. Owens,
    63 F.3d 354
    , 356 (5th Cir. 1995).
Henderson also sought immediate release.   After the judgment
was filed, Henderson sent a letter to the district court stating,
among other things, that he had been convicted and sentenced.
Henderson’s pretrial habeas claim was rendered moot by his
conviction and sentence.    See
    Yohey, 985 F.2d at 228-29
    ; Fassler
v. United States,
    858 F.2d 1016
    , 1017-18 (5th Cir. 1988).
Henderson’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus is
frivolous.    See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983).   Henderson’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.   See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
Henderson should be cautioned that the district court’s
dismissal of this action as frivolous counts as a “strike” under
§ 1915(g) after this court issues its decision dismissing this
appeal as frivolous and that the dismissal of this appeal as
No. 99-10863
-3-
frivolous also counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g).   See
Adepegba v. Hammons,
    103 F.3d 383
    , 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996).
Henderson should be cautioned that if he accumulates a third
“strike” under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in
any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.   See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.