Court Opinion

ID: 9393391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 00:00:27.489203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.986340
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40666        Document: 00516744062             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                     May 9, 2023
                                      No. 22-40666
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                      Clerk
                                    ____________

   Gabriel Rodriguez,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Judge Orlando Rodriguez; Ex-Judge Romero Molina;
   Craig Stephen Smith; Mayor Joel Villreal; Victor
   Canales, Jr.; Jane Doe; John Doe; City of Rio Grande
   City; Rene “Orta” Fuentes; Calixtro Villareal, City
   Attorney,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CV-176
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   E. Grady Jolly, Circuit Judge: *
         Gabriel Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
   dismissal of his complaint. The appeal is DISMISSED.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40666      Document: 00516744062           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                     No. 22-40666

          This case arises from Gabriel Rodriguez’s ceaseless efforts to acquire
   nine tracts of real property and mineral rights (“the property”) that were
   bequeathed to his adoptive father in a 1943 will. Texas state courts have
   determined, on more than one occasion, that Rodriguez has no rights to the
   property. Additionally, in 2015, a bankruptcy court approved a settlement in
   which Rodriguez relinquished any remaining interests that he held in the
   property. Despite those unfavorable judgments, Rodriguez’s mother
   petitioned for review of the earlier state court decisions in 2019. The county
   court found the lawsuit “a vexatious and harassing attempt to interfere
   with . . . prior judgments” and enjoined Rodriguez and his mother from any
   future lawsuits attempting to relitigate any title to the property.
          Nevertheless, Rodriguez persisted and filed this suit in district court,
   alleging that he is the lawful owner of the property. He further alleges that
   the defendants’ actions in carrying out the judgments of the Texas state
   courts reflect violations of his constitutional rights, conspiracy to violate his
   rights, and failure to prevent the same, made actionable through 42 U.S.C.
   §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, respectively, as well as civil theft and fraud in
   various forms.
          In a thorough order, the district court dismissed all but one of
   Rodriguez’s claims for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed
   the remaining claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the
   district court enjoined Rodriguez from filing suit in federal court premised on
   his asserted right to the property.
          On appeal, Rodriguez does not articulate specific grounds for
   reversing the district court’s judgment. Instead, he complains that the
   district court “violated equal protection” by using “wrong facts” and
   “wrong testimony” and dismissed his claim “in violation of Due Process of
   Law.” Rodriguez further argues that a maritime judge should have been

                                              2
Case: 22-40666      Document: 00516744062           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                     No. 22-40666

   allowed to participate in the proceeding so that the “facts or truth” could
   have been heard.
          Although this court liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se
   parties “must still brief the issues and reasonably comply” with Rule 28 of
   the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523,
   524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Although Rodriguez’s brief asserts
   extensive facts related to his grievances and a bevy of frivolous legal
   assertions, he fails to identify any actionable error by the district court. By
   failing to brief any arguments that dispute the district court’s reasons for
   dismissing his complaint, Rodriguez has waived any such arguments and has
   failed to show any cognizable basis for relief. In short, Rodriguez’s appeal is
   without merit and thus is dismissed as frivolous. See id.
                                                       APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              3