Otis Hall v. Laurie Briser, et al, No. 19-31041 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-31041 Document: 00515614518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 23, 2020 No. 19-31041 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Otis Hall, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Laurie Reis Briser; Chris Cagnolatti; Madison Parish Detention Center; Department of Corrections, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:19-CV-1181 Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Otis Hall appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, on the basis of judicial immunity, and as barred by Heck * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-31041 Document: 00515614518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 No. 19-31041 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Construed liberally, Hall’s brief does nothing more than reiterate his claims against three of the four defendants without addressing the basis for the district court’s denial of his claims against these entities or discussing his claims against the fourth defendant, the Department of Corrections, at all. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Hall’s failure to address the district court’s basis for denial as to his claims “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit . . . is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED; motion for extraordinary relief 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.