Case: 24-30085 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-30085 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 6, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Lionel Edwards, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus State of Louisiana, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:23-CV-458 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Proceeding pro se, including on appeal, Lionel Edwards, Louisiana prisoner # 93280, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging his confinement and claiming due-process and equal-protection violations based on a non-unanimous jury verdict. He challenges the district court’s dismissal, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, of his complaint for failure _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-30085 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

No. 24-30085

to state a claim. In doing so, he contends the court erroneously concluded he was seeking release from prison.

Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, pro se litigants must brief challenges to a district court judgment for this court to consider them. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Along that line, Edwards does not identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim or in its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential state-law claims. Failing to identify any error in the district court’s decision “is the same as if [Edwards] had not appealed that judgment”. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Edwards has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of those claims.

The district court’s dismissal of Edwards’ complaint constitutes a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015) (explaining “three strikes” procedure under § 1915(g)). Edwards is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes, 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 under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.