Balawajder v. Raimer

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 4, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20290
Summary Calendar
JEFFREY BALAWAJDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BENNY G. RAIMER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-MC-26
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Balawajder, Texas inmate #520106, has appealed
the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under FED.
R. CIV. P. 59(e) and the denial of his request, as a sanctioned
litigant, for permission to file a civil complaint in the district
court. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. Martinez v.
Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997); Topalian v. Ehrman,
3 F.3d 931, 934 (5th Cir. 1993); Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746,
748 (5th Cir. 1990).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Balawajder contends that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to enforce a sanction order that had been issued by
another district court and that the enforcement of the sanction
constituted a denial of due process. We have previously rejected
this argument. Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir.
1998).
Balawajder asserts that the district court did not
provide sufficient notice of the requirements that he must fulfill
to obtain permission to file a complaint in the district court. He
challenges the district court’s determinations that his complaint
is excessive in length and contains misjoined parties and claims,
contract causes of action that were devised to circumvent the
statute of limitations, and outlandish allegations of conspiracy.
In his appellate brief, Balawajder has not challenged the
district court’s conclusion that his complaint contained civil
rights claims that would be barred by the statute of limitations;
thus, he has abandoned any such challenge. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Balawajder has not provided facts and citations to authority to
support his assertion that his contract claims are legally viable
and sufficient claims. Although we apply less stringent standards
to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel
and liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se
parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the
requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523,
2
524 (5th Cir. 1995). Balawajder has not shown error in the
district court’s determinations regarding his contract claims. See
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Balawajder’s conclusional allegations
are not sufficient to demonstrate a conspiracy. Wilson v. Budney,
976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992).
Balawajder incorrectly contends that the district court
dismissed his complaint because the complaint contained parties and
claims joined in violation of FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a) and 20. The dis-
trict court denied Balawajder leave to file the complaint for all
the reasons specified in its order. Balawajder has not shown that
the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. See
Gelabert, 894 F.2d at 748.
AFFIRMED.
3