Russell v. Austin Community College, No. 23-50708 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Clerk James E. Russell, 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
