Feedback

Van Horne V Valencia

Case: 23-10906            Document: 95-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/24/2025




           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                   July 24, 2025
                                    No. 23-10906
                                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________
                                                                                        Clerk

Steven Van Horne,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Tommy Valencia; Daniel White; Charles G. Wheeler;
Texas Department of Public Safety,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:21-CV-173
                   ______________________________

Before Smith, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Steven Van Horne seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint claiming that the defendants violated, inter alia, several of
his constitutional rights by conducting a traffic stop, arresting him for the
Texas offenses of driving without a license and failing to identify himself, and

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10906        Document: 95-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/24/2025




                                 No. 23-10906


searching and impounding his vehicle. Through his IFP motion, Van Horne
challenges the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in
good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our
inquiry, therefore, “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points
arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
       By failing to address substantively the dismissal of his Fourth
Amendment claim, Van Horne abandons the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Similarly, while
he contests the district court’s denial of his October 2022 motion for an
extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, he
ignores the district court’s alternative determination that the objections,
even if considered, were without merit. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; see also
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987) (observing that failure to identify any error in district court’s analysis
is same as if appellant had not appealed). Van Horne also fails to address,
and has abandoned any challenge to, the district court’s reasons for denying
his third motion for leave to amend his complaint. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at
225; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748; see also Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Denying a
motion to amend is not an abuse of discretion if allowing an amendment
would be futile.”).
       Although Van Horne contends in his IFP pleadings that the Texas
licensing laws at issue do not apply to him because he was not driving for
commercial purposes, a state may exercise its police power to “rightfully
prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect
to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,” not just
commercial traffic.     Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915)
(emphasis added). His remaining sovereign-citizen claim—that his religious



                                       2
Case: 23-10906       Document: 95-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/24/2025




                                 No. 23-10906


beliefs and membership in the purportedly autonomous “KINGDOM OF
‫ יהוה‬ON EARTH” exempt him from Texas laws generally—is legally
meritless. See United States v. Weast, 811 F.3d 743, 746 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016)
(“The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of litigants,
commentators, and tax protesters who often take the position that they are
not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings.”).
       Van Horne fails to identify a nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED,
and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
       In previously dismissing as frivolous his appeal in another § 1983 case,
we issued Van Horne a sanction warning. See Van Horne v. Haag, No. 24-
10492, 2024 WL 4512340, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024) (unpublished),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 6, 2025) (No. 24-7138). Van Horne is again
WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals may subject him to sanctions,
including monetary sanctions and restrictions on access to federal courts. See
Fed. R. App. P. 38; Clark v. Green, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987).




                                      3