Berenguel v. Bell, 062708 FED5, 07-10066

Docket Nº:07-10066
Party Name:THOMAS R BERENGUEL Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHARLES C BELL, Smith Unit; DAVID F FONDREN, Smith Unit; SUSAN M ZINN, Smith Unit; BENNY G BUNDY, Smith Unit; MICHAEL PEREZ, Smith Unit; CYNTHIA D GUYER, Smith Unit; KRISTA M TOMLINSON, Smith Unit; SANDRA A PORTILLO, Smith Unit; LARRY D LATIMER, Smith Unit; ALBERT JIMENEZ, Smith Unit; ESPIRIDION B QUIROZ, J
Case Date:June 27, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

THOMAS R BERENGUEL Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHARLES C BELL, Smith Unit; DAVID F FONDREN, Smith Unit; SUSAN M ZINN, Smith Unit; BENNY G BUNDY, Smith Unit; MICHAEL PEREZ, Smith Unit; CYNTHIA D GUYER, Smith Unit; KRISTA M TOMLINSON, Smith Unit; SANDRA A PORTILLO, Smith Unit; LARRY D LATIMER, Smith Unit; ALBERT JIMENEZ, Smith Unit; ESPIRIDION B QUIROZ, JR, Smith Unit Defendants-Appellees

No. 07-10066

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

June 27, 2008

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CV-101

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[*]

Thomas R. Berenguel, Texas prisoner # 875536, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Berenguel's complaint, as supplemented during a hearing conducted by the district court pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), avers that the prison staff defendants violated his First Amendment rights to communicate with his family and his attorney. He complained that the offending conduct was accomplished through censorship and seizure of his outgoing personal and legal mail, denial of access to a telephone call from his attorney, retaliation, and conspiracy.

On appeal, Berenguel did not adequately brief and discuss his conspiracy claims, the single incident in which a letter to his attorney was purportedly delayed and censored, or the one occasion on which prison staff allegedly did not inform him of a telephone call from his counsel. He has therefore abandoned those claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that this court will not raise and discuss legal issues that an appellant has failed to assert); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasizing that although pro se briefs are construed liberally, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with Fed.R.App. P. 28(a)).

With respect to his remaining claims, Berenguel argues that the district court erred in dismissing the claims as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because the district court dismissed Berenguel's claims as both frivolous and for failure to state a claim, our review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP