United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 20, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50434
Summary Calendar
DAVID MICHAEL SCHELLHAAS, Etc.; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
RONALD G. SPARKS, person of inherence, a res/persona ficta,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Jure Gestionis; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, a fiduciary-agency; HARRY LAPPIN, Director, Bureau
of Prisons, a fiduciary-agent,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-461-LY
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald G. Sparks, federal prisoner # 94370-011, appeals the
dismissal without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
of his federal civil complaint in which he alleged, with the
benefit of liberal construction, that prison officials at the La
Tuna Federal Correctional Institution breached their “contract”
with him under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50434
-2-
Constitution, the Lieber Code, the Ethics in Government Act, and
numerous other statutes, by falsely alleging that he had violated
a prison disciplinary rule.
Sparks does not specifically challenge the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint as moot. When an appellant fails to
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 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
Sparks has not challenged the basis for the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint, he has abandoned the issue, and this
court need not further address it. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at
748.
Sparks’s challenge to the transfer of venue of his complaint
to the Western District of Texas also fails. The district court
for the District of Columbia found that the transfer of Sparks’s
complaint to the district court for the Western District of Texas
would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses because
Sparks, potential witnesses, and documents related to the suit
were located within the jurisdiction of the court, Sparks’s
potential communications with counsel would occur in or near the
jurisdiction of the court, and the proximity of the court to
No. 05-50434
-3-
Sparks and potential evidence suggested that the matter would be
more quickly resolved in that court. Sparks has failed to show
that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the
instant case to the district court for the Western District of
Texas. See Casarez v. Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Co., 193 F.3d
334, 339 (5th Cir. 1999); Tel-Phonic Services, Inc. v. TBS Int’l,
Inc., 975 F.2d 1134, 1138 (5th Cir. 1992).
Sparks also filed a “Notice of Protest” in which he argues
that prison officials refused to allow the plaintiffs to
communicate with one another for the purpose of preparing a joint
appeal. Sparks fails to allege any harm as the result of the
alleged denial of communication with his co-plaintiffs. Sparks
thus lacks standing to raise this claim. See Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998).
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Sparks’s complaint
is AFFIRMED.