Rosa Serrano, Texas prisoner # 2151723, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous defendants, challenging two state criminal contempt orders and her state Medicaid fraud conviction. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Serrano reasserts her claims and argues that the criminal contempt orders and her Medicaid fraud conviction were void due to violations of her constitutional rights; the state courts lacked jurisdiction because she removed the state criminal cases to federal court; and the appellees were not entitled to immunity due to their misconduct.
On appeal, Serrano makes numerous arguments but has not identified any error in the district courts reasons for dismissing her claims for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district courts analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the issue. 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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, Serrano has abandoned any argument that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748; see also United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the district courts judgment is AFFIRMED. Serranos motion to appoint counsel and to abate the appeal is DENIED. Her motion to suspend the collection of appeal fees is also DENIED.
The district courts dismissal of her complaint for failure to state a claim evidently counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Serrano is ADVISED that if she accumulates three strikes, she will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See id.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.