Jefferson v. Johnson, 25-11275

Lamar Yaka Jefferson; Jrmar Jefferson,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Bilierae Johnson, in her official and individual capacity as City Secretary of Dallas; Michael Scarpello, in his official and individual capacity as Dallas Elections Administrator; Eric Johnson, in his official and individual capacity as Mayor of Dallas; T.C. Broadnax, in his official and individual capacity as former City Manager of Dallas; Paula Blackmon, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Jesse Moreno, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Casey Thomas, II, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Carolyn King Arnold, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Omar Narvaez, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Chad West, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Adam Bazaldua, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Jaime Resendez, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Tennell Atkins, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Jaynie Schultz, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Gay Donnell Willis, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Paul Ridley, in their official and individual capacities as Dallas City Council Members; Does 1-10,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CV-428

Before Stewart, Richman, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jrmar Jefferson and Lamar Yaka Jefferson, proceeding pro se, move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court‘s dismissal of their complaint and their postjudgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Jeffersons’ complaint raised claims that the defendants, inter alia, violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with a 2023 municipal election in Dallas, Texas, whence the Jeffersons were disqualified from appearing on the ballot. The district court dismissed the Jeffersons’ complaint with prejudice upon finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their suit under the Rooker-Feldman¹ doctrine and alternatively finding that their claims were barred by res judicata. The Jeffersons’ IFP motion is a challenge to the district court‘s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The Jeffersons contend that the district court (i) erred by dismissing their case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); (ii) erred by dismissing their complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and as barred by res judicata; (iii) abused its discretion by dismissing their complaint without providing them with an opportunity to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15; and (iv) failed to consider or meaningfully address their objections to the magistrate judge‘s report and their postjudgment motion for reconsideration.

The Jeffersons fail to make the requisite showing that they will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, their motions to proceed IFP are DENIED, and their appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Notes

1

See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case Details

Case Name: Jefferson v. Johnson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 31, 2026

Citation: 25-11275

Docket Number: 25-11275

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.