The opinion
Case: 20-30671 Document: 00516114194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 2, 2021
No. 20-30671
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jarvis Brown,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Chris McConnell,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 1:20-CV-885
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jarvis Brown, federal prisoner #08200-028, appeals the denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition asserting that he was denied due process of law in
a prison disciplinary hearing. We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241
petition on the pleadings. See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30671 Document: 00516114194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2021
No. 20-30671
2010).
The district court denied Brown’s petition because he could not estab-
lish a due process violation and his claim was not cognizable in a habeas cor-
pus petition. Because Brown did not brief the latter issue, he abandoned any
argument that the district court erred by concluding that he did not have a
cognizable habeas claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993).
With respect to any civil rights claims, the label a prisoner gives to
pro se pleadings is not controlling; rather, courts look to the content of the
pleading. See United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983).
Brown asserts that he was fined based on the outcome of his disciplinary
hearing, implicating a property interest. See Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d
790, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). That property interest supports a non-habeas con-
sideration of whether the procedures related to his deprivation of property
were constitutionally sufficient. See Butts v. Martin, 877 F.3d 571, 590 (5th
Cir. 2017). The district court, however, did not address whether Brown was
denied a property interest or otherwise stated a cognizable civil rights claim
where a Bivens remedy is available. See Serio v. Members of La. State Bd. of
Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
In light of the foregoing, the denial of Brown’s habeas petition is
AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Brown’s civil rights claim is
VACATED and REMANDED for the district court to consider whether
Brown has alleged a cognizable civil rights claim where a Bivens remedy is
available. Brown’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED
without prejudice. We express no view on what decisions the district court
should make on remand.
2