Rodriguez v. Rodriguez ( 2023 )

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