Court Opinion

ID: 9412821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 18:01:36.403595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:34.968870
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51024         Document: 00516841041             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-51024
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                 August 1, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Dmt MacTruong, also known as Mac Dr. Truong,                                        Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Greg Abbott, Governor; Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor; Dade
   Phelan, Representative; Donald J. Trump; Clarence Thomas,
   Justice; Brett M. Kavanaugh, Justice; Neil M. Gorusch,
   Justice; Amy Coney Barrett, Justice; Samuel Alito, Justice,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CV-476
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Dmt MacTruong, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal, pursuant
   to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), of his civil action in which he alleged that the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51024     Document: 00516841041           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 22-51024

   defendants were involved in either passing, enacting, or upholding the Texas
   Heartbeat Act (THA), which he contends was drafted using his copyrighted
   material and was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, 41 U.S. 113 (1973),
   which has been overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S.
   Ct. 2228 (2022).
          Contrary to MacTruong’s assertion otherwise, the district court was
   entitled to dismiss the action sua sponte upon a finding that the action was
   frivolous under § 1915(e). See § 1915(e)(2)(B). To the extent MacTruong
   contends that the district court acknowledged that the Texas legislation was
   unconstitutional when it denied his complaint without prejudice, this
   argument is not supported by the record and does not present a nonfrivolous
   issue for appeal. See, e.g., In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d
   201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010).
          MacTruong argues that the THA is unconstitutional and violates
   federal law, that Dobbs was wrongly decided and does not overrule Roe, and
   that he has standing to sue based on the unconstitutionality of the THA
   because (1) the State of Texas is not a defendant; (2) the Constitution does
   not forbid a United States citizen from suing another United States citizen
   for the alleged violation of federal laws; (3) the required injury need not be
   physical and may be physical or emotional; and (4) because he and/or his
   grandchildren would have the legal duty to fight in a civil war regarding the
   Texas anti-abortion legislation. However, he has not raised a nonfrivolous
   issue for appeal because he fails to allege that he, as a man who admittedly
   resides in New Jersey, has any personal stake in the outcome of the
   legislation. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 66-67 (1996). He also argues
   that the district court had jurisdiction over his claims regarding the
   constitutionality of the THA because the federal court had jurisdiction over
   his inextricably intertwined copyright claim under 17 U.S.C. § 102.
   However, he provides no indication, beyond his unsupported assertions, how

                                         2
Case: 22-51024     Document: 00516841041           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 22-51024

   such pendent jurisdiction would have been proper. See Pickett v. Texas Tech
   Univ. Health Sciences Ctr., 37 F.4th 1013, 1027 (5th Cir. 2022). Although he
   additionally argues that the district court erred in dismissing his copyright
   claims and challenges the district court’s determination that his copyright
   claims are fantastical and completely lacking merit, these claims are so
   obviously devoid of merit that they do not involve a federal controversy, and
   thus the federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Atakapa Indian
   de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006-07 (5th Cir. 2019).
   MacTruong has not provided any specific facts or arguments challenging the
   district court’s determinations that each of the defendants had immunity
   from his civil claims, and thus he has abandoned any challenge to these
   determinations. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999);
   Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas
   Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          In light of the foregoing, MacTruong fails to raise a nonfrivolous
   argument challenging the district court’s dismissal of his complaint.
   Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED
   as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          In his filings in this court, MacTruong refers to the defendants,
   including the five named Supreme Court Justices, as murderers, misogynists,
   racists, and criminals; he asserts that the five named Supreme Court Justices,
   in particular, are traitors, cheaters, and mass sex abusers who have
   committed perjury and treason and who “deserve the death penalty or at
   least to be disbenched”; and he labels the district court as misogynist and
   criminal and asserts that the court has an “anti-American attitude.” We will
   not allow liberal pleading rules and pro se practice to be a vehicle for
   presenting documents that are abusive. See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302,
   303 (5th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, MacTruong is WARNED that future

                                         3
Case: 22-51024      Document: 00516841041          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 22-51024

   filings containing abusive, disparaging, or contemptuous language will result
   in the imposition of sanctions. See id.

                                             4