James Felknor v. Robert Felknor, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-31042 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: FPB , Judge: CES , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 09/09/2011; denying motion to add the following defendants to case 5:10-1020 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6840912-2], denying motion to have Victor Matlock served summons and copy of complaint by Federal Marshall, District Court denied case 5:10-CV-1020 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6840910-2], denying motion for court to reinstate all defendants with addresses for service of process of summons in 10-31042 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6840860-2], denying motion to add the following defendants to case 5:10-CV-1020 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6833056-2], denying motion to add the following 9 defendants to case 5:10-CV-1095 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6830857-2], denying motion to add following defendants to case no. 5:10-CV-1020 filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6829537-2], denying motion to have Victor Matlock added to case 5:10-CV-1020 and request he be served by Federal Marshal with a copy of my complaint, my financial status is in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6829296-2], denying motion to have my entire criminal & civil record expunged filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6829558-2], denying motion to envoke rule 2 of the federal rules of appellant procedures and request the court to allow me to amend my latest motion filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6826925-2], denying motion to have verdict in case no. 180763 overturned to not guilty filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6826911-2], denying motion for leave to have defendant Victor Matlock served summons by a United States Marshall under the provisions of FROCP 4(c)(1)(3)(m) & (n) also 4(m)(n)(1) and 4.1 (a) & (b) filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6809340-2], denying motion to supplement reasons why my appeal to reverse decision to dismiss all defendants, etc. filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6805906-2], denying motion for leave of court to have Fed Marshal Serve Victor Matlock service of process summons filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6805910-2], denying motion for leave to use federal marshal to provide service of process on Victor Matlock at home or work filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6804222-2], denying motion to vacate the verdict or my plea or the case and be re-tried by unbiased Judge, District Attorney and have an unbiased defense attorney appointed to represent me in a new trial if that's what it takes to right this wrong filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6804213-2], denying motion to supplement and/or add back all of the following parties to case 10-31042 on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6799457-2], denying motion to "add back and supplement defendants" filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6799446-2], denying motion "for leave of court to add parties to defendants portion of case 3:10-cv-01259" filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6789158-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. James Samuel Felknor [6688460-2] [10-31042]

Case: 10-31042

Document: 00511577050

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/19/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 10-31042
Summary Calendar

August 19, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JAMES S. FELKNOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ROBERT HENRY FELKNOR; ELLA GRACE FELKNOR HARDY; BEVERLY
INEZE BRANDON,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:10-CV-1259

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Samuel Felknor appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1332
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In addition to his brief, Felknor has filed 20
motions before this court seeking: the appointment of counsel; to add,
supplement, reinstate, and serve various defendants; to vacate state court
proceedings; and to expunge his criminal record.

*

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: 10-31042

Document: 00511577050

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/19/2011

No. 10-31042
Felknor’s brief does not address the merits of the district court’s order
dismissing the complaint. 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
issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in
order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Felknor has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determination that
his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. The appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are
denied.
Felknor has a history of repetitive and frivolous filings. While this appeal
was pending, this court cautioned Felknor that future frivolous filings in this
court would result in the imposition of sanctions. See Felknor v. United States
of America, No. 10-31013, 2011 WL 2636906 (5th Cir. July 6, 2011)
(unpublished). We again caution Felknor that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Felknor
is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not
raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.

2