Russell v. Austin Community College

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: 23-50708
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-50708 Document: 35-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50708 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 8, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce James E. Russell, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Austin Community College, (ACCelerator Staff),

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:23-CV-788 ______________________________

Before Clement, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * James E. Russell filed a pro se civil complaint in the district court, alleging that staff members at Austin Community College (ACC) violated Texas Penal Code § 37.08 by filing a false police report against him, and that they violated his constitutional right to free speech. He also suggested in

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-50708 Document: 35-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2024

No. 23-50708

conclusory terms that he was a target of harassment and racial profiling. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Russell contends for the first time that the ACC staff violated his constitutional right to privacy, Texas Penal Code § 42.06, and the Privacy Act of 1974. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a. This court, however, will not consider new theories of relief presented for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). As to the claims he did raise, we review “de novo a district court’s order dismissing a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Khalil v. Hazuda, 833 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2016). Russell failed to allege facts that would support either diversity of citizenship jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Further, his brief on appeal does not meaningfully address the district court’s jurisdictional analysis. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.