Paul Clark v. Jane Waters, 407 F. App'x 794

Clark, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals district court's dismissal of claims against over forty defendants.
On November 19, 2009, Clark filed a complaint naming numerous private individuals and public entities as defendants.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lacking any arguable basis in law or fact under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
On appeal Clark for the first time cites § 1983 but identifies only one nonparty judge as liable and presents a rambling narrative.
Rule 28 compliance issues are raised: Clark's brief lacks proper issue presentation and legal citations; the issues are deemed abandoned.
The Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal as to all asserted claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 28 compliance and issue preservation	Clark argues issues were properly raised in the brief.	Court found the brief noncompliant and abandoned the issues.	Issues deemed abandoned; affirmed.
Adequacy of dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)	Allegations stated cognizable claims against many defendants.	Pleadings were unintelligible and frivolous; lacked basis to state a claim.	District court properly dismissed.
State of § 1983 claims	Plaintiff asserts civil rights violations under § 1983 against various defendants.	Claims not properly pleaded; no proper party defendants identified.	§ 1983 claims not properly stated; dismissal affirmed.

Beaumont v. 972 F.2d 553, 972 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1992) (abusive and rambling pleadings can justify dismissal)
Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se briefs with compliance requirements)
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants must still brief issues and cite authorities)