Christopher Emerson v. Rick Thaler, Director, No. 10-20732 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-20732 Document: 00511789660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-20732 Summary Calendar March 15, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CHRISTOPHER J. EMERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus RICK THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-3653 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This court granted Christopher Emerson, Texas prisoner # 451863, a cer- * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-20732 Document: 00511789660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2012 No. 10-20732 tificate of appealability ( COA ) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized successive petition. See Emerson v. Thaler, No. 10-20732, slip op. (5th Cir. May 16, 2011). Emerson, however, has not briefed the issue on which COA was granted, i.e., whether, under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383-84 (2003), his prior pleading should count for purposes of the successive-authorization requirement. See id. Contrary to Emerson s assertion in his reply brief, this court did not hold that Castro is applicable to his case. See Emerson, No. 10-20732, slip op. at 2. We stated that it is arguable that Castro is applicable. See id. Emerson makes no argument that Castro is applicable, that he was not warned of the consequences of the recharacterization of his 2007 pleading as a § 2254 petition, or that, because Castro is applicable and he was not warned, the recharacterization does not count as a prior petition for successive-authorization purposes. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Emerson has failed to brief the sole issue on which a COA was granted, he has waived that issue, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Emerson s motion to supplement the record 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.
