Blessett v. Abbott ( 2023 )

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