Reginald Shumpert v. John Gaunt, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50632 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 05/23/2017; denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8472397-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8426782-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8394579-2]; denying motion for services to victim filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8448847-2], denying motion to amend the listed conspirators (add parties) filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8329719-2]; denying motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8309698-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Lamont Shumpert [8268813-2] [16-50632]

Case: 16-50632

Document: 00513975987

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/02/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50632
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

REGINALD LAMONT SHUMPERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JOHN GAUNT; LESLIE MCWILLIAMS; EDDY LANGE,

Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CV-101
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Reginald Lamont Shumpert appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Because the district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, review is for
abuse of discretion. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
Shumpert does not challenge the district court’s analysis of his false
imprisonment claim or the court’s basis for dismissing his complaint. He does

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50632

Document: 00513975987

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/02/2017

No. 16-50632
not address the district court’s conclusion that his claims were barred under
judicial and prosecutorial immunity and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). Instead, he rehashes his claim that Bell County officials violated his
constitutional rights when they conspired to falsely imprison him after he
posted bail.
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 Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, arguments
must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 22425 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Shumpert fails to raise any argument regarding
the district court’s dismissal of his false imprisonment claim, it is abandoned.
As Shumpert has abandoned his sole issue on appeal by failing to brief
it, he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his complaint as frivolous. See Rogers, 709 F.3d at 407. Because
the instant appeal lacks arguable merit, it should be dismissed as frivolous.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Likewise, Shumpert’s motion for the appointment of
counsel and all of his outstanding motions are denied.
The district court’s dismissal of Shumpert’s § 1983 complaint and the
dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as strikes under the three-strikes
provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761
(2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Shumpert
is cautioned that if he accumulates another strike under § 1915(g), he will not
be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed
while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

2

Case: 16-50632

Document: 00513975987

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/02/2017

No. 16-50632
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.

3