Felicia Jones v. CitiMortgage, Incorporated

Case: 11-20643 Document: 00511828971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2012
No. 11-20643
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
FELICIA NICOLE JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; PIONEER HOMES; PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General United States Postal Service,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-MC-376
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Felicia Nicole Jones has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
her pro se complaint. Jones also has filed a motion requesting a telephone
hearing. The district court dismissed her complaint on the ground that she did
not describe a claim recognized at law. We construe the district court’s dismissal
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-20643 Document: 00511828971 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2012
No. 11-20643
as a dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).
Jones has failed to address the district court’s rationale for dismissing her
claims against Citimortgage, Inc., or her claims against Pioneer Homes.
Although we liberally construe pro se filings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972), even pro se litigants must raise arguments in order to preserve
them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to
discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing these claims, Jones has
abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although Jones provides some discussion in her
brief regarding her claim against the United States Postal Service, Jones has
inadequately briefed this issue as well. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25;
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
Because Jones has failed to demonstrate that she will raise a nonfrivolous
issue on appeal, her motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. See FED. R. APP.
P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Her motion
requesting a telephone hearing also is denied. The appeal is without arguable
merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and it is dismissed
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2