United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30762
Summary Calendar
JULIAN SCOTT ESPARZA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ERICA B. STAMPLEY,
Staff Dispatcher of Labor Ready Southeast, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:05-CV-280
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julian Scott Esparza, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a claim challenging the decision of Erica B.
Stampley, the dispatcher for Labor Ready Southeast, not to
dispatch Esparza for work after witnessing him talking to himself
and determining that his behavior would disrupt the job site.
Esparza argued that Stampley breached an oral contract,
discriminated against him in violation of Title VII and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and violated his First Amendment
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30762
-2-
right to freedom of speech. The district court dismissed
Esparza’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Esparza filed timely motions under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) and
60(b) requesting relief from judgment. However, he made no new
arguments and failed to point to any error in the district
court’s decision.
After the district court denied both motions, Esparza
appealed. Esparza has again failed to point to any error in the
district court’s decision. When an appellant fails to identify
any error in the analysis of the judgment from which he appeals,
“it is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.”
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal
construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even
pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because
Esparza has briefed no point of error in the district court’s
decision, his appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Esparza is warned that future frivolous filings of this
kind can and will result in the imposition of this court’s full
panoply of sanctions which may include a fine.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.