Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6450 (5th Cir. April 8, 2014):
As we begin our review, we are mindful that "we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than parties represented by counsel." Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). This principle, however, does not give the Haases a pass on compliance with Rule 28 relating to their appellate brief. See FED. R. APP. P. 28. Their "arguments must be briefed to be preserved." Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will attempt to address the issues where the Haases have "at least argued some error on the part of the district court." Grant, 59 F.3d at 524-25 (emphasis in original). Admittedly, this can be a cumbersome exercise if the arguments are ill-defined.
Share this article: