Full Opinion

Case: 26-50252 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-50252 November 6, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk Vincent A. Corson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Vanessa Alvarez, Connally Unit; Martha Vasquezrosas, Connally Unit; Edmundo M. Cueto, Jr., Head Warden, Connally Unit, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:25-CV-398 ______________________________ Before Clement, Haynes, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Vincent A. Corson, Texas prisoner # 1973705, appeals the dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He raises three principal issues on appeal. We address each in turn. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-50252 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 No. 26-50252 First, Corson disputes the district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim for prospective relief from ongoing constitutional violations under the Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception to the Eleventh Amendment. We review that conclusion de novo. See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016). Liberally construed, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), Corson asserts that prison staff members conduct constitutionally deficient “[b]iannual/[a]nnual” searches on a “regular[]” basis. According to Corson, the procedure for these shakedowns violates his procedural due process rights because it deprives him of noncontraband items without affording him a pre-deprivation hearing. He seeks to compel the warden of the facility, in his official capacity, to create “new shakedown policies” that comport with procedural due process. Because Corson alleges ongoing violations of federal law, his “claim[] to enjoin a future action that might violate [his] constitutional rights may proceed.” Calhoun v. Collier, 78 F.4th 846, 851 (5th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment in part and REMAND for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of Corson’s prospective procedural due process claim which, as explained below, is his only remaining claim. Next, Corson disagrees with the district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim that the corrections officers, acting in their personal capacities, violated his right to procedural due process when they confiscated his textbooks during a shakedown. We also review that determination de novo. Legate, 822 F.3d at 209–10. Corson avers that the defendants deprived him of property through the random and unauthorized violation of an “established state procedure.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). But his complaint does not allege 2 Case: 26-50252 Document: 33-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 No. 26-50252 that Texas fails to provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, such a claim fails. See Weeks v. Collier, No. 22- 10126, 2023 WL 7703823, at *5 (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004)). So the district court correctly concluded that Corson’s alleged deprivation “[did] not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim” because the State did not “fail[] to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990). We thus AFFIRM the dismissal in part. Finally, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Corson’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion because he fails to show that the denial of relief was “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part. We REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 3