James Thomas Carlan appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing his in forma pauperis complaint. The complaint alleged that a state court judge violated his First Amendment rights and a federal district court judge violated his Seventh Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous.

The court reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion under twenty-eight U.S.C. section nineteen hundred fifteen, subsection (e)(two)(B)(i). The court noted that Carlan did not argue the district court abused its discretion but instead challenged the constitutionality of the judge’s prior dismissals. The court found that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Regarding the merits, the court held that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for normal judicial functions, such as issuing rulings. The court further stated that resolving a case based on a matter of law before trial does not violate the Seventh Amendment.

The decision reinforces that pro se litigants must strictly adhere to appellate briefing requirements to preserve claims. It also confirms that judicial immunity bars damages claims against judges for routine judicial acts, including dismissals, and that summary judgment does not infringe on Seventh Amendment rights.