Case: 18-51015 Document: 00515239561 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-51015 December 17, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DONALD WAYNE READ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
E. HSU; BILL REESE; CHRISTINE E. MCKEEMAN,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:18-CV-662
Before BENAVIDES, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Donald Wayne Read, Texas prisoner # 1888548, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants
wrongfully dismissed grievances that he had filed with the “Texas State Bar
Association” against the attorneys involved in his prior criminal proceedings.
The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
determining that his request for compensation for his allegedly wrongful
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-51015 Document: 00515239561 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
18-51015
conviction failed to state a claim because it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); that he failed to state a claim for monetary relief
against the defendants in their official capacities due to their Eleventh
Amendment immunity; and that he did not have a federally protected
constitutional right to have his grievances resolved to his satisfaction. In a
subsequent “amended Final Judgment,” which we construe as the denial of a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, the district court made a similar
determination.
On appeal, Read notes that his complaint alleged that the Texas State
Bar refused to compel its members to follow Texas Statutes and rules of
professional conduct. He also asserts that the statute under which the district
court dismissed his complaint violates his First Amendment right to petition
the Government for grievances. Additionally, he asserts that prison
authorities are obligated “to assist inmates in filing legal papers” and that if a
federal judge were to “ironically” dismiss a citizen’s complaint as frivolous, it
would reflect on the constitutional right to equal protection. Finally, he states
that the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous “is a[] bias[ed] method for the
courts to exploit and oppress the poor citizens of our Nation” and is illegal and
void.
Read does not provide any facts or arguments in support of these
conclusory assertions, and none of these assertions addresses the district
court’s reasons for dismissing or denying his claims. When an appellant does
not identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the
appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, any challenges
to the district court’s judgments dismissing the complaint and denying the
construed Rule 60(b) motion are deemed abandoned, and Read’s appeal is
2
Case: 18-51015 Document: 00515239561 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
18-51015
DISMISSED as frivolous. See id.; 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Read has already accumulated at least three strikes for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Read v. Collier, No. 5:18-CF-191 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14,
2019) (unpublished); Read v. Naylor, No. 4:18-CV-168 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2019)
(unpublished); Read v. LaCroix, No. 4:18-CV-235 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019)
(unpublished). As a result, the district court imposed the § 1915(g) “three-
strikes bar” in a subsequent civil rights action filed by Read. See Read v. TDCJ
Director, No. 5:19-CV-106 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2019) (unpublished). We have
not applied the § 1915(g) bar here because Read filed this appeal before earning
three strikes. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); Banos v.
O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998). We remind Read, however, that he
is barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding 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 REMINDER ISSUED.
3