Turner v. Johnson

Case: 25-11274 Document: 35-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-11274

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 6, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Ronnie Turner, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

Donald Johnson, Texas Ranger; The State Bar of Texas; Richerd Bland, Assistant District Attorney; Andrea Thomas Jacobs, Assistant District Attorney,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:25-CV-99 ______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Ronnie Turner, Texas prisoner # 01336062, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification Case: 25-11274 Document: 35-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2026

No. 25-11274 that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In his IFP pleadings, Turner contends that the district court erred because it did not explicitly rule on one of his motions and did not hold a Spears 1 hearing. However, the district court implicitly denied all pending motions filed by Turner when it entered its final judgment. See Edwards v. 4JLJ, L.L.C., 976 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir. 2020). Furthermore, the district court did issue Turner a questionnaire to provide him with an opportunity to supplement his complaint with more specific facts to support his claims, and Turner does not allege with any clarity what additional facts would have been gleaned through a Spears hearing and how those facts would have averted dismissal or established facially plausible claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) Turner otherwise fails to address meaningfully the district court’s reasons for the dismissal of his complaint. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Turner has failed to meaningfully challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the Case: 25-11274 Document: 35-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/06/2026

No. 25-11274 appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.