Roman v. El Paso Cty Sheriff

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51325
Conference Calendar
MACIEL M. ROMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-399
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maciel M. Roman, federal prisoner # 33878-180, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against
the El Paso County Detention Center as well as the district
court’s dismissal of his motion seeking an order of protection
with respect to Bureau of Prison (BOP) officials. The district
court dismissed the § 1983 suit on the basis that Roman had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court denied
the motion regarding the BOP officials for lack of jurisdiction.
Roman’s brief does not address either the district court’s

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-51325
-2-
conclusion that Roman did not exhaust his administrative remedies
or that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion for an
order of protection. Roman addresses only the underlying merits
of his claims. Accordingly, he has abandoned the only issues on
appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although we construe a pro se
litigant’s pleadings liberally, even pro se litigants must
identify errors and brief the relevant issues. See Yohey, 985
F.2d at 224-25.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The
dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Roman that if he
accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not
be able 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.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --