Logan v. Hennigan, No. 22-10076 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10076 Document: 00516497165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 5, 2022 No. 22-10076 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Hannah Logan; Henry O. Logan, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Jerome Hennigan, 324 Family Law Judge, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-749 Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Hannah and Henry Logan appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging civil rights violations and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Judge Jerome Hennigan, the presiding judge of the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 22-10076 Document: 00516497165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 No. 22-10076 324th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Logans’ appellate brief does not meaningfully address the basis for the district court’s dismissal. 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). The Logans’ failure to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal, “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to [their] suit . . . is the same as if [they] had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court judgment is AFFIRMED. The Logans’ pending motions for appointment of counsel, for summary judgment, to expedite the appeal, and for exemption of PACER fees are DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 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.