Ricardo Newsome v. State of Mississippi, et al, No. 18-60635 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-60635 Document: 00515248309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/24/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-60635 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 24, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RICARDO BRYAN NEWSOME, Plaintiff−Appellant, versus STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; HARRISON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER; HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; GULFPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOEL SMITH; et al., Defendants−Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 1:18-CV-178 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Newsome, Mississippi prisoner #123359, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60635 Document: 00515248309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/24/2019 No. 18-60635 a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court reasoned that Newsome’s claims challenging his state conviction and sentence were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486−87 (1994). The court further reasoned that Newsome’s habeas corpus claim requesting his immediate release was unexhausted and therefore was subject to dismissal without prejudice. On appeal, Newsome re-urges his contentions that the state trial court’s alleged errors resulted in a void conviction and illegal sentence. Newsome does not address the district court’s ruling that his suit was Heck-barred or that his habeas claim was unexhausted. Although this court liberally construes pro se filings, a pro se party “must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28].” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as though he had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Newsome’s brief does not address the bases of the district court’s ruling, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal. See id. The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of the complaint in part as frivolous and for failure to state a claim each count as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761−64 (2015). Newsome is hereby warned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 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.
