No. 25-5558

Matthew Andrew Garces v. Cindy Hernandez, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-09-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: claim-preclusion default-judgment due-process fifth-circuit jurisdictional-limit pro-se-litigant
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that a default judgment against a pro se litigant constitutes a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' for claim preclusion purposes, in conflict with other circuit decisions and Supreme Court precedent

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that a default judgment, entered against a pro se litigant who was incapacitated and hospitalized during the state court proceedings, constitutes a “full and fair opportunity to litigate ” for claim preclusion purposes, in direct conflict with the decisions of the Third and Seventh Circuits and this Court ’s precedent in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership. 2. Whether a judgment rendered by a court of limited jurisdiction —which is statutorily barred from adjudicating claims exceeding $20,000 —can extinguish federal claims for damages that facially exceed that jurisdictional limit, thereby violating due process and fundamental principles of jurisdiction by allowing state courts to nullify federal rights they lack the authority to enforce. Page 3 of 17

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-09-30
Waiver of right of respondent Cindy Hernandez, et al. to respond filed.
2025-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 6, 2025)

Attorneys

Cindy Hernandez, et al.
Hunter JohnsonConstangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Respondent
Matthew Andrew Garces
Matthew Andrew Garces — Petitioner