Filed: Jan. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20657 USDC No. H-99-CV-1567 RAYFIELD JOSEPH THIBEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus EARNESTINE JACKSON; ALPHONSE HANDY; DOCTOR SUHR; HERMAN STEVENSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - December 28, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM 1: Rayfield Joseph Thibeaux (TDCJ # 479532) moves for leave to appeal, in forma pauperis (IFP), the d
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20657 USDC No. H-99-CV-1567 RAYFIELD JOSEPH THIBEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus EARNESTINE JACKSON; ALPHONSE HANDY; DOCTOR SUHR; HERMAN STEVENSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - December 28, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM 1: Rayfield Joseph Thibeaux (TDCJ # 479532) moves for leave to appeal, in forma pauperis (IFP), the di..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20657
USDC No. H-99-CV-1567
RAYFIELD JOSEPH THIBEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EARNESTINE JACKSON; ALPHONSE HANDY;
DOCTOR SUHR; HERMAN STEVENSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
--------------------
December 28, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM 1:
Rayfield Joseph Thibeaux (TDCJ # 479532) moves for leave to
appeal, in forma pauperis (IFP), the district court’s dismissal
of his civil rights complaint based on his accrual of three
“strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Although this court liberally construes briefs of pro se
litigants, arguments must be briefed to be preserved. Yohey v.
Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Issues not briefed
are deemed abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex.,
986 F.2d
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-20657
- 2 -
104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Thibeaux makes no argument
concerning the court’s determination that he has three strikes,
this court will not address the issue. See
Yohey, 985 F.2d at
225. Insofar as he suggests that he should nevertheless be
allowed to proceed because he is faced with danger of serious
physical injury that imminent, Thibeaux fails to make the showing
required by § 1915(g). See Baños v. O’Guin,
144 F.3d 883, 884-85
(5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Thibeaux’s motion for IFP is
DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v.
Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Thibeaux’s motions
for restraining orders also are DENIED.
ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.