Lual Deng v. James Parker, et al, No. 18-11583 (5th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 18-11583 Document: 00515371191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11583 Summary Calendar FILED April 3, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LUAL MARKO DENG, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JAMES ROBERT PARKER; PARKER SPORTS MEDICINE & ORTHOPEDICS; PANHANDLE SURGICAL HOSPITALS; PHYSICIANS SURGICAL HOSPITALS; CALICO COUNTY; ANNISSIYA BRASHEARS; MERCEDES MILLER; HIBO OMER; WILLIE LNU; MAKAYLA LNU, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18-CV-61 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lual Marko Deng filed a pro se complaint alleging that his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. James Robert Parker, had implanted a microchip into his knee without his consent during a surgery to repair his ACL in violation of his civil rights. He later filed an amended complaint where he renewed his allegations 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 18-11583 Document: 00515371191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020 No. 18-11583 against Dr. Parker and added parties to his lawsuit, including several “Facebook associates,” a Chick-fil-A employee, Dr. Parker’s orthopedic surgery practice, and two local hospitals. The district court dismissed Deng’s amended complaint sua sponte because his claims lacked the legal plausibility necessary to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. Deng filed a timely notice of appeal. Deng argues that the district court erred in dismissing his amended complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. He has also filed motions to file a corrected brief and appendix. In addition, he moves to expedite his appeal. This court reviews the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 2019). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Deng fails to brief any issue relevant to the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint or otherwise challenge the court’s jurisdictional conclusion. As such, he has abandoned the sole issue available to him on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Deng’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. His motions to file a corrected brief and appendix are GRANTED. His motion to expedite his appeal is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.