Jackson v. Harris County

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-20440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-20440 Document: 35-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2025

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

No. 24-20440 FILED ____________ April 16, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Renee Jackson, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Harris County District Court,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-2090 ______________________________

Before Southwick, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Renee Jackson moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal from the dismissal of her civil rights action and the denial of her motion for reconsideration, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court dismissed Jackson’s civil action without prejudice for want of jurisdiction, citing reasons given at a hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20440 Document: 35-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2025

No. 24-20440

In her pro se brief, Jackson recites her complaints about the handling and disposition of four lawsuits she filed in the Harris County District Court. She contends that the district court had jurisdiction over her civil action because it is a duly constituted lower federal court created by Congress and given statutory authority to hear civil cases. She also seemingly challenges an argument made by the defendant in its motion to dismiss; in this vein, Jackson contends that disallowing suit against a non-jural entity frustrates the provision of justice because it allows a state court to make erroneous, biased, and corrupt decisions without legal consequences. Because Jackson has not provided a transcript of the telephonic hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, our review is limited to “those issues which can be reached on the record before [us].” Gulf Water Benefaction Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 674 F.2d 462, 466 (5th Cir. 1982). Given that limitation, Jackson fails to show that that her appeal will raise an issue that is not frivolous. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, Jackson’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Her motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.