Filed: Feb. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50491 Conference Calendar JAMES H. PRIDGEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARK HICKS, Classification Officer; PABLO GUERRA, Gang Intelligence; DAWN WILLIAMSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CV-433 - Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PR
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50491 Conference Calendar JAMES H. PRIDGEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARK HICKS, Classification Officer; PABLO GUERRA, Gang Intelligence; DAWN WILLIAMSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CV-433 - Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRA..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50491
Conference Calendar
JAMES H. PRIDGEON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARK HICKS, Classification Officer;
PABLO GUERRA, Gang Intelligence; DAWN WILLIAMSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-433
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James H. Pridgeon (Pridgeon), Texas prisoner # 1056266,
appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and the
grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Pridgeon
claims that the defendants violated prison policy by placing him,
a confirmed gang member, in the general population instead of
administrative segregation. Pridgeon claims that as a result of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50491
-2-
the defendants’ actions, he was attacked by fellow inmates and
received life threatening injuries. Pridgeon seeks monetary
relief for his injuries.
Even though the district court determined that Pridgeon
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(c), the district court could dismiss Pridgeon’s
underlying claims if it determined that “the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). The district
court determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity. Thus, the district court granted their motion for
summary judgment.
On appeal, Pridgeon reiterates his claims but does not
identify error in the grant of the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal
construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order
to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993). By failing to identify any error in the
district court’s judgment, Pridgeon has abandoned the issue on
appeal.
Id. at 225. Thus, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.