Harris v. Watson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50579 Document: 00516737914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-50579 May 4, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Reginald Harris,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
FNU Watson, Hillsboro Police Officer; Vernon Busby, Hill County
Sheriff Deputy; Officer Rogers,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:21-CV-1216
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Reginald Harris, proceeding pro se, sued Officer Watson, Deputy
Busby, and Officer Rogers (collectively “Defendants”), asserting they
violated the Constitution and federal and state law when they arrested him in
February 2021. The district court dismissed Harris’s constitutional and
federal law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50579 Document: 00516737914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-50579
subsequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his
remaining state law claims.
Harris appears to raise two main issues on appeal. Though his brief is
difficult to parse, he seems to argue that the district court erred in dismissing
his claims because (1) it failed to rule on his “Motion for Prohibitory
Injunction and Immunity,” filed January 14, 2022, and (2) he sufficiently
pleaded that Defendants committed a variety of state and federal law
violations when they arrested and detained him.
Harris’s first argument is without merit. Even assuming the district
court was required to rule on Harris’s request, “[t]he denial of a motion by
the district court, although not formally expressed, may be implied by the
entry of a final judgment or of an order inconsistent with the granting of the
relief sought by the motion.” Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s order dismissing Harris’s case under
Rule 12(b)(6) is inconsistent with his request for release and immunity from
criminal trial on the grounds that he was “unlawful[ly] arrested.” Therefore,
the district court “implicitly denied that request and thereby satisfied its
duty, if any, to issue a ruling.” Peña v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, N.A., 807 F.
App’x 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). 1
Harris has inadequately briefed, and thus abandoned, all other points
of error. Even construed generously, his brief at most provides a few
conclusory assertions that Defendants committed statutory and
constitutional violations. He wholly fails, however, to explain how or why the
district court erred in dismissing his claims. Under our precedents,
_____________________
1
Although Peña and other unpublished opinions cited herein are “not controlling
precedent,” they “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d
391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).
2
Case: 22-50579 Document: 00516737914 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-50579
neglecting to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal amounts to a
failure to appeal the underlying judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Holman v. Collier, 830 F. App’x 738,
738–39 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (observing that “even pro se litigants
must brief arguments in order to preserve them”).
Along the same lines, Harris’s brief is grossly non-compliant with the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. While his brief is replete with legal
jargon and irrelevant jurisdictional statements, he fails to set forth any record
cites, specific facts, or relevant authorities supporting his position. See, e.g.,
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6), (a)(8)(A). While we construe the briefs of pro
se litigants liberally, they nonetheless “must abide by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.” United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.
1994) (per curiam). Such fundamental failure to properly present and argue
any points of error precludes us from engaging in meaningful review. See,
e.g., Clark v. Waters, 407 F. App’x 794, 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal because appellant’s brief “[was] grossly non-compliant”
with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). Accordingly, we deem
Harris’s arguments on appeal abandoned. Id.; see also United States v.
Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Harris’s
claims. 2
_____________________
2
Motion to appoint counsel is denied.
3