Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Edward Deshan Smith’s pro se complaint concerning allegedly defective home modifications performed by Lonestar Construction and funded through a Texas disability-services program. The court held that Smith abandoned his appellate arguments by failing to adequately brief them and found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of appellate counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith adequately presented appellate arguments challenging the district court's dismissal of his complaint.
- Whether exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of appellate counsel for Smith.
Holdings
- Smith abandoned any arguments attacking the district court's judgment because his appellate presentation was extremely undeveloped and failed to set forth reasons why the judgment was incorrect.
- Smith failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of appellate counsel.
Key quotations
“Questions posed for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered abandoned.” (slip op. at 2)
“While we “liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.”” (slip op. at 2)
Factual background
The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services funded minor home modifications intended to address an individual's needs and promote health, safety, welfare, or independence. Smith, a paraplegic with mental health problems, lived with his uncle after previously residing in a nursing home. He alleged that Lonestar performed poorly executed plumbing and other repair work at his uncle's home in November 2010, rendering the home a safety hazard, and claimed that the work violated his constitutional and statutory rights.
Procedural history
Smith filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging constitutional and statutory violations arising from allegedly defective home repairs. On May 16, 2011, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint, along with three other pending lawsuits. Smith timely appealed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.