# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 11029 Summary Calendar

**Ignacio Salcido,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Eric Wilson,** Warden **; Fort Worth FMC; Bureau of Prisons (BOP),** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CV

- 254

Before **Barksdale, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**.**
**Per Curiam :**  *

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and concerning Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, by Ignacio Salcido, federal prisoner # 88965

- 051 and proceeding pro se , was dismiss ed with prejudice as moot , frivolous , and for

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11029 Document: 00516323960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022No. 21

- 11029

2 failure to state a claim. Salcido appears to challenge only the dismissal for

mootness. (To the extent that Salcido raises new challenges for the first time regarding conditions at another prison where he is no w confined, or requests release to home confinement, our court will not consider them. See Leverette
v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to consider challenge raised for first time on appeal).)
Questions of jurisdictio n, including mootness, are , of course,
reviewed de novo

. Veasey v. Abbott , 888 F.3d 792, 798 (5th Cir. 2018). Salcido
fails to show the district court erred in concluding : his amended complaint sought only declaratory and injunctive relief related to con ditions at Federal
Medical Center F ort Worth ; and, therefore, his claims became moot when he was transferred to another prison

. E.g. , Edwards v. Johnson , 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding claim for injunctive relief moot after defendant transferred to different facility) ; Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr. , 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (concluding facility transfer mooted declaratory and injunctive

- relief claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act , 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq )

. Salcido’s complaint , however, should have been dismissed without prejudice , based solely on lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction

. E.g. , Cinel v.
Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1994) (dismissing for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and modifying judgment to reflect claims dismissed without prejudice ) ; Hitt v. City of Pasadena , 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (“ Dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim is a decision on the merits and essentially ends the plaintiff’s lawsuit, whereas a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds alone is not on the merits and permits the plaintiff to pursue his claim in the same or in another forum.” )

. Th e judgment of the district c ourt is **AFFIRMED AS** 
**MODIFIED** , to reflect dismissal without prejudice. Case: 21-11029 Document: 00516323960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022