Court Opinion

ID: 9395065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 00:00:30.196244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.346069
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40378        Document: 00516752960             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/16/2023

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

                                      No. 22-40378                          FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                    May 16, 2023
                                    ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   Joe Blessett,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Greg Abbott; Ken Paxton; Steven C. McCraw; Xavier
   Becerra; United States Department of Health and
   Human Services; Anthony Blinkin; United States
   Department of State; United States; City of
   Galveston; Sinkin Law Firm,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-9
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Joe Blessett, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
   of his civil complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40378        Document: 00516752960              Page: 2       Date Filed: 05/16/2023

                                         No. 22-40378

   because Blessett’s challenge to state court orders addressing child support
   were barred by the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, and the defendants were
   entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity on his official-capacity
   claims. The district court also determined that Blessett failed to state a claim
   upon which relief may be granted because the defendants were entitled to
   qualified immunity on his individual-capacity claims. Additionally, the
   district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-
   law claims.
           We conduct a de novo review of dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissals
   under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
   granted. Smith v. Hood, 900 F.3d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 2018). As a preliminary
   matter, although Blessett raises a multitude of issues and relies on a wide
   variety of legal authority in his lengthy briefs, to the extent that he did not
   present adequate argument addressing any of the issues he identifies, the
   issues are abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
   see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
   Cir. 1987).
           To the extent that Blessett attacks the underlying state court orders or
   judgments concerning child support, the district court correctly concluded
   that the claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they
   “invit[e] district court review and rejection” of the state divorce decree and
   child support judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
   U.S. 280, 291 (2005).

           _____________________
           1
              District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker
   v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

                                                    2
Case: 22-40378      Document: 00516752960           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/16/2023

                                     No. 22-40378

          Citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), Blessett argues that he has
   standing to sue the individual state defendants, Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton,
   and Steven C. McCraw.          The Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh
   Amendment immunity does not apply in this case because Blessett’s
   amended complaint does not allege an ongoing violation of federal law. See
   Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002); Vogt
   v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 2002);
   Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2002). To the
   extent that Blessett raises claims against these defendants in their individual
   capacities, it is not necessary to address his claims because if they violated no
   law or constitutional provision in their official capacities, they cannot be
   found liable in their individual capacities. See Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631,
   639 n.3 (5th Cir. 2013). Additionally, Blessett has failed to show that the
   district court erroneously determined that Xavier Becerra and the United
   States Department of Health and Human Services were entitled to sovereign
   immunity on Blessett’s official-capacity claims and qualified immunity on his
   individual-capacity claims. See Pratt v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 822 F.3d 174, 180
   (5th Cir. 2016); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Danos v.
   Jones, 652 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 2011).
          To the extent that Blessett challenges the district court’s decision to
   decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, he fails
   to address the “factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction
   doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Carnegie
   Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), and fails to otherwise
   show an abuse of discretion, see Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217,
   226-27 (5th Cir. 1999). Regarding Blessett’s challenge to the denial of his
   motions for a default judgment, we cannot say that the district court abused
   its discretion. Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead and Sav. Ass’n, 874
   F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989).

                                               3
Case: 22-40378      Document: 00516752960           Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/16/2023

                                     No. 22-40378

          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.                 Blessett’s
   motions for judicial notice, to reduce federal debt claim, and to reduce
   certificates of nonresponse to judicial order for enforcement are DENIED.
          The instant complaint is Blessett’s sixth challenge in federal court to
   his Texas child support. Blessett is warned that future frivolous filings will
   invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include monetary sanctions or
   limits on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this
   court’s jurisdiction.

                                               4