IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10390
Conference Calendar
MARCUS TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAROL VANCE, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
NFN KILE, Lieutenant, also known
as NFN Kyle,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CV-7
--------------------
February 20, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Taylor appeals following an adverse jury verdict on
his excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Proceeding pro
se on appeal, Taylor argues that the defendant’s witnesses
committed perjury. He asks the court to examine certain
exhibits, which are said to contradict testimony given by the
defendant’s witnesses. Taylor argues that the jury was biased
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10390
-2-
and that he was denied the appointment of counsel in a conspiracy
to ensure that he did not prevail in his claims. He requests
that the judgment of the district court be reversed and seeks the
appointment of counsel on remand.
Taylor does not argue that the district court erred in
refusing to admit his exhibits into evidence, and because the
exhibits were not admitted, they are not included in the record
transmitted to this court. Because Taylor did not provide a
trial transcript, it is impossible to review any exhibits in the
context of the testimony adduced at trial. The record contains
no indication of jury bias, and Taylor’s claim of perjury cannot
be addressed in the absence of a transcript.
According his pro se brief a generous reading, Taylor raises
the issue of district court error in denying his motion for the
appointment of counsel. However, Taylor fails to brief this
issue. His brief contains no citation to the record on appeal,
no citation to authorities relevant to the appointment of
counsel, and no argument regarding the criteria for appointment
of counsel for indigent litigants. See Cooper v. Sheriff,
Lubbock County, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
Although this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se
litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and comply
with the standards of Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.
1995); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(7) and (9)(A). Because the argument
is inadequately briefed, it is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 01-10390
-3-
As Taylor fails to brief an appealable issue his appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. The dismissal of the instant appeal as
frivolous counts as a "strike" under the three-strikes provision
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Taylor is hereby cautioned that once he
accumulates three strikes he may not proceed in forma pauperis 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.