Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50422/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Abbott
Appellee
Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Appellee
Patrick L.O. Daniel
Appellee
David G. Gutierrez
Appellee
Jose Flores Hernandez
Appellant
Eric J. R. Nichols
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50422

____________

Jose Flores Hernandez, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

David G. Gutierrez, Chair Person; Pardon & Paroles; Eric J. R. 

Nichols, Chair Person; Texas Board Department of Criminal Justice; 

Governor Greg Abbott; Bryan Collier, Executive Director, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Patrick L.O. Daniel, Board 

Member; Texas Board of Criminal Justice, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:24-CV-279

______________________________

Before Smith, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Flores Hernandez, Texas prisoner # 00305602, moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 

civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion is a 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 26, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50422 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024
No. 24-50422

2

challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in 

good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

When his pro se filings are given liberal construction, see Morrow 

v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), Hernandez contends, without 

citation to authority, that the district court erred in determining that the 

defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity as to claims for monetary 

damages or other retrospective relief because, as a prisoner, he is not a private 

citizen for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. “The Eleventh 

Amendment bars suits by private citizens against a state in federal court.” 

K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 124 (5th Cir. 2010). “Texas has not consented 

by statute, and § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity.” NiGen 

Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2015). We have 

affirmed the dismissal of § 1983 suits filed by Texas state prisoners as barred 

by the Eleventh Amendment. See Aguilar v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 160 

F.3d 1052, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 1998). 

As to his remaining civil rights claims, Hernandez makes no effort to 

demonstrate error in the district court’s determinations that such claims 

should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted because his allegations failed to establish the requisite personal 

involvement of the defendants, see Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th 

Cir. 1983), and because he improperly sought release from confinement in a 

civil rights action, see Melot v. Bergami, 970 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Although we liberally construe his pro se filings, see Morrow, 2 F.3d at 643 

n.2, Hernandez still must brief arguments to preserve them, see Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not argued in the 

body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. 

In sum, Hernandez fails to demonstrate that “the appeal involves legal 

points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard 

Case: 24-50422 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2024
No. 24-50422

3

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 

F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of Hernandez’s action for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted counts as a strike under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous also 

counts as a strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 

1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 

537 (2015). Hernandez is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he 

will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case: 24-50422 Document: 41-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/26/2024