IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40295
Conference Calendar
__________________
RODNEY LEE McDOWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM H. BROOKS, Board
of Pardons & Paroles,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 6:94-CV-746)
- - - - - - - - - -
June 28, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Lee McDowell has filed an appeal from the district
court's dismissal of his suit; nevertheless, McDowell has failed
to brief any issue related to the district court's dismissal of
his suit. Although this court construes pro se pleadings
liberally, pro se litigants must abide by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651,
653 (5th Cir. 1994). The Rules require that the appellant's
argument contain the reasons he deserves the requested relief
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40295
-2-
"with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the
record relied on." FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(6). A statement of the
applicable standard of review is also required. Id.
Failure to comply with the court's rules regarding the
contents of briefs can be grounds for dismissing a party's
appeal. 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.2. Because McDowell has failed to brief
the only viable issue in this appeal (the propriety of dismissal
for failure to prosecute), the appeal has no arguable merit and
is therefore frivolous. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is
DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
McDowell has also moved this court to appoint counsel on
appeal. No general right to counsel in civil rights actions
exists. Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
"This court may appoint counsel in civil rights actions
presenting `exceptional circumstances.'" Cooper v. Sheriff,
Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991)(quoting
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982)).
McDowell's allegations that he was entitled to "maybe mandatory
release or maybe an interview" are speculation, and they do not
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is
unexceptional; McDowell's motion is DENIED.