Ellis v. Wilson

Case: 20-10403 Document: 00516042290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 5, 2021 No. 20-10403 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Priscilla A. Ellis, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Eric J. Wilson, United States South Central Regional Acting Director; Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General; Maria Chapa Lopez, United States Attorney; Patrick Scruggs, United States Assistant Attorney; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Federal Bureau of Prisons Director; Michael Carr, Federal Bureau of Prisons Warden, FMC Carswell; Cohen, Federal Bureau of Prisons Associate Warden, FMC Carswell; United States of America Solicitor General; United States of America FBI Agent Unknown, (SAM Agent); United States Director of the FBI; Lux, Federal Bureaux of Prisons Executive at FMC-Carswell, Individually and in their Official Capacities, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-82 Case: 20-10403 Document: 00516042290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2021 No. 20-10403 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Priscilla A. Ellis, federal inmate # 03260-180, appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). She also has filed motions for an en banc hearing, for the appointment of counsel, and for leave to file an index in support of her brief. The district court dismissed Ellis’s civil action after Ellis failed to timely comply with its order to file an inmate trust account certificate in conjunction with her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In her pleadings before us, Ellis does not address the district court’s decision to dismiss her § 1983 claims under Rule 41(b). Her failure to identify any Rule 41(b) error is the same as if she had not appealed the ruling at all. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although Ellis is pro se, “pro se parties must still brief the issues.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Her failure to brief the issue on appeal works as an abandonment of that argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Ellis’s motions for an en banc hearing, for the appointment of counsel, and for leave to file an index are DENIED. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2