United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50540

____________

Arturo Macias, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Department of Family Services, also known as CPS, also known 

as DFPS, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:22-CV-1292

______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Arturo Macias, Jr. is a pro se plaintiff who sued the Texas Department 

of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) in federal court after the agency

involuntarily removed his children pursuant to a state court judge’s order. 

Macias requests his children be returned to his custody, a declaratory 

judgment that DFPS acted unlawfully, a permanent injunction against DFPS 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50540 Document: 00516992868 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2023
No. 23-50540

2

prohibiting the agency’s allegedly abusive litigation practices, and 

$11,000,000 in damages. The district court, on recommendation from the 

magistrate judge, dismissed Macias’s complaint without prejudice because 

sovereign immunity barred his claims. We affirm.

Macias articulated various criminal and civil claims in his complaint 

and his subsequently filed request for declaratory and injunctive relief, which 

the district court and the magistrate judge construed as an amended 

complaint. Sifting Macias’s dozens of legal citations, the magistrate judge 

liberally construed his pleadings to allege claims under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702–03; 

18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 371, 983, 1028, 1201(a), 2313; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02; 

and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 2000aa-6, 2000dd. See, e.g., Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam) (instructing courts to 

construe pro se complaints liberally). On appeal, Macias does not reference 

any of these claims except as alleged under § 1983. Instead, he now advances 

constitutional claims under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments, and statutory claims under the Child Abuse and Prevention 

Treatment Act, the Adoption and Safe Family Act, and the Social Security 

Act, though he does not specify which causes of action within those statutes

upon which he relies.

We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s decision to dismiss 

an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. United States v. Renda Marine, Inc., 667 F.3d 651, 655 

(5th Cir. 2012) (citing LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 2005)). 

Though Macias has not explicitly waived most of his original claims, he has 

abandoned those he fails even to mention in his appellate brief. Binh Hoa Le 

v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 2021) (“When a party 

pursues an argument on appeal but does not analyze relevant legal authority, 

the party abandons that argument.”). To the extent any of his original claims 

are preserved, including his § 1983 claim, we agree after de novo review with 

Case: 23-50540 Document: 00516992868 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2023
No. 23-50540

3

the magistrate judge’s recommendation, as adopted by the district court, that 

Macias’s claims against DFPS are barred by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., 

United States v. Abbott, 85 F.4th 328, 333 n.2 (5th Cir. 2023) (noting that 

§ 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity). And Macias’s newly 

raised claims are forfeited because he raises them for the first time on appeal. 

Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397–98 (5th Cir. 2021). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50540 Document: 00516992868 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2023