The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-11363•Summary Calendar TIMOTHY ROBERT KLINE v. Brown County Sheriff’s Office
02-11363Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitApr 24, 2003
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 23, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-11363
Summary Calendar
TIMOTHY ROBERT KLINE
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BROWN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND JAIL EMPLOYEES,
GLENN SMITH, MARY BARRON, BROWN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER INMATES
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-226
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy Robert Kline, Texas prisoner # 916910, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous because it is time-barred. Kline’s brief does not
address the basis of the district court’s dismissal of his action
as time-barred. Although this court applies less stringent
standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 02-11363
-2-
represented by counsel and liberally construes briefs of pro se
litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and
reasonably comply with the requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 28.
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Because
Kline does not address the district court’s reasons for
dismissing his claims, he has abandoned the claims. Brinkmann
v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
(5th Cir. 1987).
Kline’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal
of this action as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of this
appeal as frivolous both count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996). Kline is advised that if he accumulates three strikes
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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 in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Kline’s
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.