Regalado V Hidalgo County

Case: 24-40435 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 23, 2025
No. 24-40435
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Rogelio Regalado,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Hidalgo County; J.E. Eddie Guerra, officially and individual
capacity; District Clerk Laura Hinojosa, officially and
individually; Yvette Vidaurri, officially and individually,

Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:23-CV-290
______________________________

Before Stewart, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Rogelio Regalado moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
in this appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint and amended complaint, wherein he asserted a series of
constitutional violations related to his short duration of detention at the
Hidalgo County Detention Center, including claims that various defendants
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40435 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2025

No. 24-40435

denied him access to the courts and unlawfully imprisoned him after he
posted bond. The 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).
In his IFP papers, Regalado contends that the district court erred in
certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act because he had been released from prison. However,
the certification provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) applies to suits brought
by “prisoners and nonprisoners alike.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 200. 1 In any
event, the district court recognized that Regalado was not in prison and
denied Regalado IFP status based on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24.
Regalado also argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for appointment of counsel. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d
82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). However, in denying his motion, the district court
found that Regalado’s claims did not meet the threshold plausibility
requirement. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015).
Regalado does not challenge this finding or otherwise argue in his IFP papers
that his claims had merit. Any such arguments are abandoned. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Otherwise, Regalado fails to address the district court’s reasons for
the dismissal of his complaints. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal
construction. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. Nevertheless, when an appellant
fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the
_____________________
1
To the extent Regalado challenges the district court’s application of the physical-
injury requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), the district court’s determination that none of
Regalado’s claims stated a plausible constitutional violation, which Regalado fails to
contest, would foreclose his claims for damages regardless.

2
Case: 24-40435 Document: 46-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2025

No. 24-40435

appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Regalado has failed to meaningfully challenge the district
court’s disposition of his claims and dismissal of his complaints, he has
abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See id. Thus, the appeal lacks
arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the
appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R.
42.2. Regalado’s motion for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED.