Propes v. Collin Cty Sheriffs

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40430
Conference Calendar
JOHNNIE R. PROPES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COLLIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-135-PNB-DDB
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Johnnie R. Propes (Propes), Texas prisoner # 1178904,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court dismissed Propes’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
repetitious because Propes raised a similar claim in a
previously-filed civil rights suit, which is currently pending
before the district court. Propes argues only that he received

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-40430
-2-
inadequate medical care while confined in the Collin County
Detention Facility.
On appeal, Propes does not challenge the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights suit as repetitious. Rather, he
argues the merits of his inadequate medical care claim. 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,
Propes has abandoned the issue on appeal. Id. at 225.
Propes’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED
as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the instant appeal as
frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), as
well as the district court’s dismissal as repetitious. See
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)
(repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action
is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
malicious). Propes is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three
“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to
proceed IFP 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-40430
-3-
Additionally, Propes’s request for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --