Case: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 1, 2012
No. 11-10731
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CLARENCE HAWKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
S. O. WOODS,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:11-CV-153
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence Hawkins appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. Hawkins, acting pro se and filing on behalf of his deceased
brother, alleged in the district court that the State Classification Committee of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice kept his brother in prison past his
discharge date, failed to notify the records division in a timely manner of the
discharge date, and caused his brother’s death in prison. The district court
concluded that the statute of limitations applicable to Hawkins’s claims had
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2012
No. 11-10731
expired. The district court dismissed Hawkins’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous.
Hawkins’s appellate brief does not address the district court’s reason for
dismissing his claims. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe
briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably
comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. Grant
v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We will not raise and
discuss legal issues that Hawkins has failed to assert; 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 that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Hawkins has failed to
brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Hawkins is warned that the filing of repetitious or frivolous appeals may
result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in
this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
2