Court Opinion

ID: 9383560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 18:00:45.957209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.205036
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40229    Document: 00516694886       Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/30/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                         FILED
                                No. 22-40229                        March 30, 2023
                              Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk

   Jose Reyes Lujan Trevino,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Armando Gutierrez, Individually and in his official capacity; Victor
   Lujan, Individually and in his official capacity; Jane Doe, Individually
   and in her official capacity; John Doe, Individually and in his official
   capacity; Unknown named DHS Ice Office of the Chief
   Counsel, San Antonio, Texas, Individually and in their official
   capacity; Unknown named DHS ICE CBP Officers Laredo-
   San Antonio, Texas District, Individually and in their official
   capacity; Immigration Court San Antonio District; Clerk
   of Immigration Court; Immigration Judge Cynthia
   Lafuente Gaona, Individually and in her official capacity;
   Immigration Judges Jane Doe, Individually and in their official
   capacity; Immigration Judges John Doe, Individually and in their
   official capacity; Social Security Administration,

                                                     Defendants—Appellees.

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:20-CV-180
Case: 22-40229         Document: 00516694886             Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                         No. 22-40229

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Jose Reyes Lujan Trevino appeals the district court’s
   dismissal of his complaint. Because he fails to show any reversible error, we
   AFFIRM.
          This case stems from Trevino’s lawsuit against Victor Lujan, Jr.,
   Armando Gutierrez, and numerous federal agencies, officers, and
   immigration judges. Among other allegations, Trevino alleges a far-reaching
   conspiracy in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.
          Trevino’s allegations are hard to follow. But in short, he alleges that
   he was improperly arrested by the Department of Homeland Security and
   that his deportation was the result of an intricate conspiracy between Victor
   Lujan, Jr. (his nephew), Armando Gutierrez (his former employee),
   unspecified Homeland Security officers, and the Immigration Court judges.
   Trevino contends that they all conspired to have him deported so Lujan and
   Gutierrez could take his real estate business and embezzle his money.
          The district court dismissed Trevino’s claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for
   lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
   a claim. The following were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1):
          (1) Claims arising from removal cases and immigration detention
          (2) Claims under the Freedom of Information Act
          (3) Claims against the Social Security Administration
          (4) Claims for damage against federal agencies and employees in the
          official capacities

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

                                               2
Case: 22-40229     Document: 00516694886          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                   No. 22-40229

   The rest of his claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule
   12(b)(6).
          We have reviewed Trevino’s brief and all relevant materials. And we
   agree with the district court’s determination that Trevino’s complaint
   should have been dismissed. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

                                         3