Court Opinion

ID: 9907794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 01:00:42.876072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:21.557182
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50540        Document: 00516992868             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50540
                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                              December 6, 2023
   Arturo Macias, Jr.,                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
                                                                    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.
Case: 23-50540      Document: 00516992868          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-50540

   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

                                         2
Case: 23-50540      Document: 00516992868          Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-50540

   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.

                                          3