Court Opinion

ID: 9907631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 19:01:16.756881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:36.916690
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10366        Document: 00516991703             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10366
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               December 6, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Michael Logan Lowery,                                                              Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Adam R. Gonzales; Joe Tovar; Amy A. Garcia; Bobby
   Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional
   Institutions Division,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:22-CV-16
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Michael Logan Lowery, Texas prisoner # 1954001, filed a pro se civil
   suit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
   Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act
   (TRFRA), and the right of equal protection. After the case was removed

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10366      Document: 00516991703           Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                     No. 23-10366

   from state court, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss
   pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Lowery now appeals.
          Because “even a pro se appellant cannot raise new theories for relief
   for the first time on appeal,” we decline to address claims in Lowery’s brief
   that he failed to present to the district court. Collins v. Dallas Leadership
   Found., 77 F.4th 327, 330 n.2 (5th Cir. 2023). His pending motions, which
   rely on those claims and related allegations, are DENIED.
          This court reviews Rule 12(c) dismissals de novo, applying the same
   standard used for deciding motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Q Clothier New Orleans, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire
   Ins. Co., 29 F.4th 252, 256 (5th Cir. 2022). A plaintiff avoids dismissal by
   “plead[ing] sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
   face.” Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          Both RLUIPA and TRFRA protect religious exercise, and “[c]laims
   under TRFRA may be resolved by consideration of case law applying
   RLUIPA[.]” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 576 (5th Cir. 2012); see 42
   U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.003(a)-(b).
   Lowery avers that racial segregation is an aspect of his religious beliefs and
   complains of being housed with non-white inmates. The district court found
   these allegations insufficient to plead “the existence of a substantial
   interference with a religious exercise,” which is required to support a
   RLUIPA claim. Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 124 (5th Cir. 2007). As
   Lowery shows no error in that determination, we conclude his statutory
   claims were properly dismissed. See id.; McFaul, 684 F.3d at 576.
          The elements of an equal protection claim are that the plaintiff was
   treated differently than similarly situated individuals and the unequal
   treatment stemmed from a discriminatory intent. Fennell v. Marion Indep.

                                          2
Case: 23-10366      Document: 00516991703           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                     No. 23-10366

   Sch. Dist., 804 F.3d 398, 412 (5th Cir. 2015). As the district court observed,
   Lowery alleges only that different groups have received different treatment;
   he does not plead facts that show or suggest this disparate treatment was the
   result of a discriminatory intent. This claim accordingly fails as well. See id.
          Lowery also maintains that the district court erred by not allowing him
   to submit evidence before dismissing his claims, but in doing so ignores the
   fact that the court was authorized to grant judgment on the pleadings. See
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Even assuming Lowery has not abandoned this issue
   through inadequate briefing, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
   Cir. 1993), his argument is unavailing.
          For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                          3