Conference Calendar NOE VILLALPANDO v. Eckerd’s 3267

07-10109Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitFeb 20, 2008

Full text

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-10109
Conference Calendar
NOE VILLALPANDO
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ECKERD’S #3267
Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
QUALEX INC
Third Party Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-2132
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Noe Villalpando moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of Villalpando’s negligence
suit. The district court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution because
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 20, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-10109
2
Villalpando failed to appear at the settlement conference and show-cause
hearing.
Villalpando’s motion for IFP fails to address the district court’s rationale
for dismissing the suit. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see 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).
By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint,
Villalpando has abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not
appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Villalpando has failed to demonstrate that he will raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. See FED.
R. APP. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). This appeal
is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.