Shumaker v. Guzman

Case: 22-40049 Document: 00516288627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 21, 2022
No. 22-40049 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Patrick L. Shumaker,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Isabella Guzman, Administrator of United States
Small Business,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CV-477
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Patrick Shumaker filed this pro se appeal seeking to overturn the
district court’s denial of his motion for an emergency injunction to compel
Isabella Guzman, Administrator of the United States Small Business
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40049 Document: 00516288627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2022
No. 22-40049
Administration (“SBA”), to immediately issue funds to him pursuant to the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“Cares Act”). See Pub.
L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). Because we decline to do so, we affirm.
I.
In May 2020, Shumaker was awarded an Economic Injury Disaster
Loan (“EIDL”) Advance in the amount of $1,000 under Section 1110(e) of
the Cares Act. Shumaker, however, claimed that he was entitled to the
maximum amount allowable under this provision of the Cares Act, which was
$10,000. In September 2021, the SBA contacted Shumaker and notified him
that it was unable to verify the existence of an eligible business as reflected in
his application for the additional funds. Two months later, Shumaker filed
suit in Hidalgo County, Texas, against Guzman in her capacity as the SBA
administrator. Therein, he alleged that Guzman violated Section 1110 of the
Cares Act and Section 5002 of the American Rescue Plan 1 by requesting his
tax returns to verify his business eligibility and for not issuing the additional
EIDL funds that he had requested. The case was removed to federal court in
December 2021 and Shumaker moved for an emergency injunction seeking
to compel Guzman to immediately approve and issue the funds he sought in
his EIDL application. The district court denied Shumaker’s motion and this
appeal followed.
II.
We review “the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse
of discretion, with any underlying legal determinations reviewed de novo and
factual findings for clear error.” Topletz v. Skinner, 7 F.4th 284, 293 (5th Cir.
2021).
1
Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4 (2021).
2
Case: 22-40049 Document: 00516288627 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2022
No. 22-40049
III.
As a threshold matter, we agree with Guzman that the SBA forecloses
injunctive relief by providing that “no . . . injunction . . . shall be issued against
the Administrator or his property.” 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1). Moreover, this
court has recently reiterated that “all injunctive relief directed at the SBA is
absolutely prohibited.” See In re Hidalgo Cnty. Emergency Serv. Found., 962
F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 2020). This language clearly and unambiguously applies
to all injunctive relief directed at the SBA—not just injunctive relief in the
bankruptcy context as Shumaker appears to contend on appeal. For these
reasons, we hold that the district court did not err in denying Shumaker’s
motion for an emergency injunction.
IV.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3