Benjamin Stewart v. Senior Warden, Neal Unit, TDCJ, No. 19-10806 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10806 Document: 00515608357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 20, 2020 No. 19-10806 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Benjamin R. Stewart, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus NFN Pennie, Senior Warden, Neal Unit; Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Bryan Collier, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director; Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Gregg Abbott, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-423 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-10806 Document: 00515608357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2020 No. 19-10806 Benjamin R. Stewart, Texas prisoner # 1970445, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We review that dismissal for abuse of discretion. McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 1988). Additionally, Stewart has filed numerous motions, including a motion to appoint counsel, a motion to amend the case caption, a “motion to give the court authority” to address his claims of abuses in the prison and to conduct an investigation of prison conditions, two motions for a temporary restraining orders, a motion “to involve the FBI,” and a motion to suspend the ruling on the case to allow Stewart to obtain counsel upon his release and to allow filing of his “first addendum for damages.” On appeal, Stewart fails to address the district court’s application of Rule 41(b). This court reviews pro se briefs with the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but even pro se litigants must brief their arguments in order to preserve them, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Stewart has abandoned any argument that the dismissal of his complaint was an abuse of discretion by failing to brief it, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Furthermore, Stewart’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied because he has not shown that this case presents exceptional circumstances. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015). His remaining motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS 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.
