Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20645/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nick Alfred Aguilar
Appellant
State of Texas
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20645

Summary Calendar

NICK ALFRED AGUILAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3278

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Nick Alfred Aguilar, Texas prisoner # 324831, on 

parole from an enhanced life sentence for possession of heroin, challenges the 

dismissal of his pro se civil-rights complaint against the State of Texas. In the 

complaint, he claimed his incarceration (of a heroin addict) violated the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because the 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20645 Document: 00513151281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-20645

2

State acted with deliberate indifference. A dismissal for failure to state a claim 

is reviewed de novo. E.g., Varela v. Gonzales, 773 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Aguilar’s contention, that the Attorney General of Texas lacked standing 

to file the motion to dismiss his complaint, fails because, under Texas law, the 

Texas Attorney General serves as the common legal representative of State 

agencies. E.g., Sierra Club v. City of San Antonio, 115 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 

1997). 

Aguilar neither recognizes nor challenges the district court’s conclusions 

that his complaint was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge

to those conclusions. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, Aguilar’s reliance on Robinson v. 

California, 370 U.S. 660, 666-67 (1962), is misplaced because he was not 

convicted under Texas law based on his use of heroin, but because he possessed 

it. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-20645 Document: 00513151281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015