Garces v. Hernandez, No. 25-50342 (Aug. 19, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Matthew Andrew GARCES v. Cindy HERNANDEZ
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Aug. 19, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Davis (Circuit Judge); Jones (Circuit Judge); Ho (Circuit Judge)
Garces v. Hernandez, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2401001Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.Matthew Andrew GARCES, Plaintiff—Appellant,v.Cindy HERNANDEZ, Area Manager of WoodSpringSuites; WoodSpring Suites; Choice HotelsInternational, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellees.No. 25-50342|Summary Calendar|FILED August 19, 2025Appeal from the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Texas, USDC No. 5:25-CV-81Attorneys and Law FirmsMatthew Andrew Garces, San Antonio, TX, Pro Se.John Hunter Johnson, Esq., Constangy, Brooks, Smith &Prophete, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Katherine Isabel Serrano,Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, L.L.P., Austin,TX, for Defendants—Appellees Cindy Hernandez, AreaManager of WoodSpring Suites, Choice Hotels International,Incorporated.John Hunter Johnson, Esq., Constangy, Brooks, Smith& Prophete, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant—AppelleeWoodSpring Suites.Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.OpinionPer Curiam:**1 Plaintiff-Appellant Matthew Garces, appearing pro seand in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights suit after the district court concluded a final state-courtjudgment precluded his claims. We AFFIRM.In August 2024, Garces sued Defendants-Appellees,Cindy Hernandez, Woodspring Suites, and Choice HotelsInternational, Inc., in the County Court at Law No. 3 ofBexar County, Texas, alleging he was wrongfully evictedfrom a hotel for smoking marijuana. The suit sought damagesfor violations of Texas's Compassionate Use Program andthe Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 6, 2024,the County Court entered summary judgment and dismissedGarces's claims. No appeal was taken, so that judgmentbecame final 30 days later.1 Garces contends he “was unableto physically appear” before the County Court to “confronthis abusers.” Rather than pursue an appeal on that ground instate court, Garces refiled the same claims against the sameparties in the U.S. District Court for the Western Districtof Texas. Defendants-Appellees moved to dismiss underfederal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing claim preclusion.2 The districtjudge converted the motion to one for summary judgmentand dismissed, after correctly concluding the County Courtjudgment precluded the claims in the federal suit.3 Garcesnow appeals.Garces presents three reasons why his claims are notprecluded, none of which has merit. First, he argues theCounty Court action raised only a state-law claim of eviction.This argument is frivolous considering the record andGarces's judicial admission that the state and federal suitsshare complete identity of claims and parties.4 Second,Garces argues the County Court lacked jurisdiction over“federal civil rights claims,” a generalization that is wrong asa matter of law.5 Relatedly, Garces argues the County Courtlacked jurisdiction over claims exceeding $20,000, but hisclaims have no value at all, per the County Court judgment.Regardless, Garces has no ground to complain about themonetary jurisdictional limit of a state court where he, andhe alone, chose to sue. Third, Garces argues his inabilityto appear before the County Court “voids res judicata,”but the authorities he cites in his brief for that propositiondo not exist.6 The district court's judgment is thereforeAFFIRMED.*2 Before concluding, two aspects of Garces's litigationconduct deserve special mention and admonition. First, hiscitation to many nonexistent authorities strongly suggests theuse of generative artificial intelligence.7 The litigant-user ofAI—even a pro se one like Garces—must verify the accuracyof AI-generated information, mindful that citing authoritiesthat are fabricated by AI may violate appellate Rules 32and 38.8 Separately, we note again that Garces has filed 28other pro se lawsuits in the District Court for the WesternDistrict of Texas this year alone,9 prompting that courtto enter a cease-and-desist order and to consider additionalsanctions.10 In addition to those remedial measures, Garces
Garces v. Hernandez, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2is hereby WARNED FOR A SECOND TIME that futurefrivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings can andwill result in sanctions by this Court, which may includedismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his abilityto file pleadings here and in any court subject to this Court'sjurisdiction.11 Garces should review all pending matters andmove to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwiseabusive.All CitationsNot Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2025 WL 2401001Footnotes*This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.1See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.2See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).3See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (ascribing full faith and credit to final state-court judgments). Because theCounty Court judgment was rendered by a Texas state court, Texas law governs application of res judicata.Heller Fin., Inc. v. Grammco Comput. Sales, Inc., 71 F.3d 518, 523 n.4 (5th Cir. 1996).4Given that complete identity exists here, the County Court judgment precludes the identical federal claims.See Heller Fin., 71 F.3d at 523 (“Under Texas res judicata principles, a prior judgment precludes a claim onlyif the parties are identical, the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and was afinal judgment on the merits, and the challenged claim arises out of the same subject matter litigated in thefirst suit.” (footnote omitted)).5Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458–59 (1990) (“We have consistently held that state courts have inherentauthority, and are thus presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the UnitedStates. If exclusive jurisdiction be neither express nor implied, the State courts have concurrent jurisdictionwhenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it.” (cleaned up)).6The nonexistent authorities cited as support are Ermine v. Frank, 655 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2011), and Miller v.Cap. One Bank, 2008 WL 686798 (N.D. Tex. 2008).7Other such “authorities” found in Garces's briefing include Gulf Islands Leasing, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital,Inc., 215 F.3d 1085 (5th Cir. 2000); Katzenmeier v. Oppenheimer, 535 F. Supp. 2d 983 (S.D. Iowa 2008);Lenz v. City of Minneapolis, 899 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2018); and Testard v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 6 F.4th581 (5th Cir. 2021). A supposed Noffsinger case, which Garces cited only as “273 F. Supp. 3d at 346,” alsodoes not appear in the reporters.8See FED. R. APP. P. 32(d) (providing signature requirement for briefs); FED. R. APP. P. 38 (providing forawards of damages and/or costs should court find an appeal to be frivolous).9Garces v. Hernandez, No. 5:25-CV-82 (filed Jan. 22, 2025); Garces v. City of San Antonio, No. 5:25-CV-127(filed Feb. 6, 2025); Garces v. Garland, No. 5:25-CV-128 (filed Feb. 6, 2025); Garces v. Mohammed, No.5:25-CV-141 (filed Feb. 11, 2025); Garces v. DOJ, No. 5:25-CV-252 (filed Mar. 7, 2025); Garces v. UnitedHealth Care, No. 5:25-CV-256 (filed Mar. 10, 2025); Garces v. Hernandez, No. 5:25-CV-312 (filed Mar. 26,2025); Garces v. Ruiz, No. 5:25-CV-339 (filed Mar. 31, 2025); Garces v. S.A. Police Dep't, No. 5:25-CV-388(filed Apr. 11, 2025); Garces v. Rossbach, No. 5:25-CV-441 (filed Apr. 22, 2025); Garces v. Contreras, No.5:25-CV-539 (filed May 15, 2025); Garces v. Doe, 5:25-CV-578 (filed May 27, 2025); Garces v. Bisignano, No.
Garces v. Hernandez, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.35:25-CV-579 (filed May 27, 2025); Garces ex rel. Contreras, Jr. v. Univ. Hosp., No. 5:25-CV-580 (filed May27, 2025); Garces v. Torrez, No. 5:25-CV-604 (filed May 30, 2025); Garces v. Saenz, No. 5:25-CV-605 (filedMay 30, 2025); Garces v. Smith, No. 5:25-CV-607 (filed June 2, 2025); Garces v. Biery, No. 5:25-CV-609(filed June 2, 2025); Garces v. Huerta, No. 5:25-CV-633 (filed June 9, 2025); Garces ex rel. Contreras, Jr. v.Christus Health, No. 5:25-CV-634 (filed June 9, 2025); Garces v. CarMax, Inc., No. 5:25-CV-635 (filed June9, 2025); Garces v. Tenet Health, No. 5:25-CV-636 (filed June 9, 2025); Garces v. Pain & Spine Physiciansof S.A., PLLC, No. 5:25-CV-637 (filed June 9, 2025); Garces v. Brain & Spine Inst. of S.A., No. 5:25-CV-639(filed June 9, 2025); Garces v. Epic Pain Mgmt./Express Pain & Urgent Care, No. 5:25-CV-685 (filed June 18,2025); Garces v. Garcia, No. 5:25-CV-686 (filed June 18, 2025); Garces v. Caudill, No. 5:25-CV-702 (filedJune 23, 2025); Garces v. City of San Antonio, No. 5:25-CV-703 (filed June 23, 2025).10See Cease and Desist Order, Garces v. Mohammed, No. 5:25-CV-141 (W.D. Tex. May 29, 2025), Dkt. No.20 (ordering Garces to cease and desist from interacting with the district court's clerk's office and applyingthat order to nine other pro se cases filed by Garces); see also R&R of U.S. Magistrate Judge, Garcesv. Rossbach, No. 5:25-CV-441 (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2025), Dkt. No. 14 (recommending pre-filing injunctionagainst Garces).11See Garces v. Bondi, No. 25-50359 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025).End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access