Palma v. State of TX, et al

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20387
Summary Calendar

Michael-Francis Palma,

Plaintiff—Appellant
,

versus

State of Texas; Rolando Pablos, State of Texas; Murl
E. Miller, State of Texas Comptroller; Roland
Altinger, Harris County Appraisal District; Ronnie
Thomas, Harris County Appraisal Review Board; Ann
Harris Bennett, Harris County Tax Assessor -
Collector; Judiciary Defendants, State of Texas;
Harris County District Clerk; Senate Select
Committee on Property Tax Reform, State of Texas;
Senate Committee on State Affairs, State of Texas;
Texas Judicial Counsel; Harris County Sheriff's Office
In Rem Defendants,

Defendants—Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-4561

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-20387 Document: 00515527565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2020

No. 19-20387
2
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael-Francis Palma appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint in which he sought damages and other relief for violations of his
civil rights in connection with the collection of property taxes. The district
court dismissed the action after finding that Palma failed to prosecute his
claim and failed to comply with a court order.
The pro se brief filed by Palma does not address the sole issue on
appeal, which is whether the district court erred by dismissing his complaint
for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, it is as if he did not appeal the
issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction,
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). Because Palma has not identified any error in the district
court’s analysis underlying the dismissal of his civil action, his appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5
TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20387 Document: 00515527565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2020