Christopher Wooten v. Stan Parker, et al, No. 19-10782 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10573 Document: 00515655921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 1, 2020 No. 19-10573 consolidated with No. 19-10782 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Christopher Wooten, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Stan Parker, Howard County Sheriff; Timothy D. Yeats, Howard County Judge, 118th District; Colleen Barton, Howard County District Clerk; FNU Averett, Howard County Deputy Sheriff; FNU Buchanan, Howard County Deputy Sheriff; Robert H. Moore, III, Judge; Timothy Green, Magistrate, Howard County; FNU Green, Judge, Howard County, Defendants—Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 1:17-CV-12 Case: 19-10573 Document: 00515655921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 No. 19-10573 No. 19-10782 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Christopher Wooten, Texas prisoner # 2089854, appeals the dismissal without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the denial of his postjudgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We review both for abuse of discretion. See Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (5th Cir. 2014); Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 871 (5th Cir. 1989). On appeal, Wooten primarily realleges the substantive claims that he asserted in his § 1983 complaint. He does not discuss the application of Rule 41(b) or otherwise meaningfully address the reasons why his complaint was dismissed or his Rule 60(b) motion was denied. Though we review pro se briefs with the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief their arguments to preserve them, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). By not identifying an error in the disposition of his § 1983 complaint or Rule 60(b) motion, Wooten has abandoned any claim related to those rulings. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224−25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Thus, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Wooten’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because he has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015). * 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. 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.
