Christopher Emerson v. Rick Thaler, Director

464 F. App'x 346
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 2012
Docket10-20732
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 F. App'x 346 (Christopher Emerson v. Rick Thaler, Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Emerson v. Rick Thaler, Director, 464 F. App'x 346 (5th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

This court granted Christopher Emerson, Texas prisoner # 451863, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized successive petition. See Emerson v. Thaler, No. 10-20732, slip op. (5th Cir. May 16, 2011). Emerson, however, has not briefed the issue on which COA was granted, i.e., whether, under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383-84, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003), his prior pleading should count for purposes of the successive-authorization requirement. See id.

Contrary to Emerson’s assertion in his reply brief, this court did not hold that Castro is applicable to his case. See Emerson, No. 10-20732, slip op. at 2. We stated that it is arguable that Castro is applicable. See id. Emerson makes no argument that Castro is applicable, that he was not warned of the consequences of the recharacterization of his 2007 pleading as a § 2254 petition, or that, because Castro is applicable and he was not warned, the recharacterization does not count as a pri- or petition for successive-authorization purposes. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Emerson has failed to brief the sole issue on which a COA was granted, he has waived that issue, and the *347 judgment is AFFIRMED. Emerson’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Johnson
Fifth Circuit, 2024
William Webb v. Lorie Davis, Director
940 F.3d 892 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 F. App'x 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-emerson-v-rick-thaler-director-ca5-2012.