John Johnson v. Lorie Davis, Director, No. 16-10518 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10518 Document: 00514294110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10518 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 4, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHN LEE JOHNSON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CV-311 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Lee Johnson, Texas prisoner # 659223, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in which he maintained that he was denied previously earned time credits and that the denial of those credits affected his right to be released to mandatory supervision. This court granted a COA on a single issue–whether 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10518 Document: 00514294110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2018 No. 16-10518 the district court correctly dismissed with prejudice the application for failure to prosecute. Johnson v. Davis, No. 16-10518 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2017). This court’s review is limited to issues for which a COA has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1998); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151–52 (5th Cir. 1997). While pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief claims in order to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a). Johnson has failed to address the procedural issue of whether the district court properly dismissed his § 2254 application for failure to prosecute. He has instead briefed the merits of his claim that his due process rights were violated because he was denied good-time credits. Because Johnson has not addressed the only issue upon which a COA was granted, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224–25. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.
