Opinion
20-60939
11-05-2021
Carlton Theodore Landis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. Martin, Warden of USP-Yazoo City; Christopher Curry, Unit Manager at USP-Yazoo City; Lisa Singleton, Case Manager Coordinator at USP-Yazoo City; Sean Evans, Case Manager at USP-Yazoo City; DeQuanty Lott, SIS Lieutenant at USP-Yazoo City; Samuel Rogers, Case Manager; E. Crimaldi, Lieutenant at USP-Yazoo City; John Doe #1, employee at USP-Yazoo City; John Doe #2, employee at Designation & Sentence Computation Center; R. Taylor, Lieutenant at USP-Yazoo City, Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:19-CV-177
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam [*]
Carlton Theodore Landis, federal prisoner # 24449-056, filed a Bivens complaint against prison officials at Federal Correctional Complex, Yazoo City on grounds that he faced retaliation for requesting a transfer to another prison and for filing administrative grievances. He sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed his complaint on various grounds and denied his motion to amend his complaint as futile.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
On appeal, Landis failed to brief any arguments, which renders all of his issues on appeal abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that while pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them). Landis's reference to the pleadings in the district court in his appellate brief is insufficient. See United States v. Abdo, 733 F.3d 562, 568 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that "[a]n appellant may not incorporate by reference issues and arguments raised in the district court"); see also see also Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25 (same for pro se appellant).
Accordingly, Landis's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and the Government's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary affirmance is DENIED as unnecessary.
[*] Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.