Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10429/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10429-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Allen
Appellee
Kristine Crandall
Appellee
USCIS Texas Service Center
Appellee
Jeff Baoliang Zhang
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-10429

Summary Calendar

____________

Jeff Baoliang Zhang, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Jon Allen, Director; Kristine Crandall, Director; USCIS 

Texas Service Center, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CV-2904

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Jeff Baoliang Zhang appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil 

rights complaint. In his pleadings, he asserted that the defendants violated 

his constitutional rights by denying his wife’s immigration petition. The 

district court screened and dismissed his complaint pursuant to the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10429 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024
No. 24-10429

2

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review such dismissals de 

novo. See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016).

The district court correctly found that, because the defendants are a 

federal agency and federal employees, they are not subject to suit under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. See Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 518 (5th Cir. 2005); Resident 

Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 980 F.2d 

1043, 1053 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court also correctly found that 

sovereign immunity bars any claim against the defendants in their official 

capacities. See Danos v. Jones, 652 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 2011). The district 

court declined to address Zhang’s remaining state law claims, a decision that

Zhang does not challenge on appeal. Thus, he has waived any state-law 

issues. United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346 (5th Cir. 2009).

Zhang argues that the defendants are liable under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He did not raise either theory

in his complaints, but he did raise his Civil Rights Act claim in his objections 

to the magistrate judge’s report. We generally will not consider a new theory 

of relief raised for the first time on appeal. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 

183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Similarly, issues raised for the first time in 

a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion or in objections to a 

magistrate judge’s report are not properly before the district court and are 

considered forfeited. Shambaugh & Son, L.P. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 91 F.4th 

364, 369 (5th Cir. 2024); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 

1990). Zhang has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his Rule 59(e) motion. See Advocare Int’l LP v. Horizon Lab’ys, Inc., 

524 F.3d 679, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Zhang argues the defendants’ failure to contest his claims 

means they have admitted their wrongdoing. He also argues the district court 

effectively became an “agent” for the defendants, creating alibis and 

Case: 24-10429 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2024
No. 24-10429

3

defenses for them. Zhang misunderstands the screening function of 

Section 1915(e)(2)(B), which directs a district court to dismiss an in forma 

pauperis complaint at any time, even prior to service on the defendants, if it 

determines the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-10429 Document: 32-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2024