Smeaton v. Nelson, No. 21-30140 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-30140 Document: 00516377951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 30, 2022 No. 21-30140 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Keith Smeaton, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Alan Nelson; Ron Sanders; Warden Federal Detention Center Oakdale; William H. Furnia; David Westberg; Edward Moss; Charles A. Weigand, III; H. S. Ott; David Johnston; Thomas Hetrick; Norman Carlson; Foy; Steven Martin; Joseph Williams; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:86-CV-3333 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-30140 Document: 00516377951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022 No. 21-30140 Keith Smeaton, former federal prisoner # 75242-011, and a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, seeks review of the district court’s January 22, 2021 denial of his “motion for reconsideration.” This motion concerned Smeaton’s objection to the entry on the district court docket sheet of our December 15, 2020 order dismissing one of Smeaton’s prior appeals for want of prosecution based on his failure to timely file a brief. Smeaton’s appellate briefing is nothing more than an attempt to challenge the district court’s April 2020 denial of postjudgment relief and to reargue the merits of his civil rights claims. While pro se briefs are liberally construed, 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). Smeaton’s failure to address the district court’s basis for denial of his motion for reconsideration, “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit . . . is the same as if he had not appealed that” order. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s ruling. See id. Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Smeaton’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
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.
