Full Opinion

Case: 26-10377 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-10377 November 13, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk John Hurt, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Hunt County, Texas; Terry Jones, in his official and individual capacity; John Doe, Jail Staff; Bernalillo County, Clerk of Court; New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts; John Doe, Clerks/Administrators, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CV-3154 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * John Hurt, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against New Mexico defendants John Doe Jail Staff; Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Bernalillo County, Clerk of Court; New Mexico _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-10377 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 No. 26-10377 Administrative Office of the Courts; and John Doe Clerks/Administrators. Hurt contends that after determining that it lacked jurisdiction over the New Mexico defendants, the district court should have transferred some or all of his claims to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631. He further argues that the district court improperly dismissed his claims “without conducting a claim-by-claim, defendant-by-defendant, and relief-specific analysis,” and alternatively, that he “alleged a prima facie basis for specific personal jurisdiction, or at minimum alleged facts requiring jurisdictional discovery, amendment, or transfer.” We AFFIRM. I. Hurt alleges, among other things, that the New Mexico defendants improperly maintained or disseminated warrant and criminal-record information that later resulted in his arrest and detention in Texas and caused other injuries. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Hurt’s claims and enter a final judgment against Hurt due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the New Mexico defendants, as well as a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to certain claims. Hurt subsequently objected to the magistrate’s recommendations and moved to transfer the remaining claims against the New Mexico defendants to the District of New Mexico. The magistrate judge then provided a supplemental recommendation that Hurt’s motion to transfer should be denied. On April 20, 2026, the district court adopted the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissed Hurt’s claims without prejudice. II. We review the denial of a motion to transfer for abuse of discretion. See Seville v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 53 F.4th 890, 897 (5th Cir. 2022); McCoy v. 2 Case: 26-10377 Document: 40-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 No. 26-10377 Energy XXI GOM, L.L.C., 695 F. App’x 750, 759 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). We review a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000). III. Hurt argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to transfer his claims to the District of New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, which permit transfer to another district in the interests of justice to cure venue and jurisdictional defects. But the district court reasonably determined that transfer would not serve the interest of justice. As the magistrate judge explained, Hurt should have known from his prior litigation that his claims belonged in New Mexico, and he attempted to use this action to collaterally attack the criminal proceedings there. See Seville, 53 F.4th at 897 (citation modified) (“We have long made clear that it is obviously not in the interest of justice to allow § 1406 to be used to aid a non-diligent plaintiff who knowingly files a case in the wrong district.”). Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion. Hurt alternatively argues that he alleged facts supporting jurisdiction over the New Mexico defendants, but he fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis of jurisdiction. Hurt correctly acknowledges that “[t]he specific-jurisdiction inquiry requires purposeful contacts by each defendant with the forum,” yet fails to allege that any of the New Mexico defendants had purposeful contacts with the state of Texas. See Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir. 2001). His assertion that “the challenged conduct foreseeably operated through interstate law-enforcement, court-record, or background-check systems” is insufficient to support a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction. Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Foreseeable injury alone is not sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction, 3 Case: 26-10377 Document: 40-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 No. 26-10377 absent the direction of specific acts toward the forum.”). The district court properly dismissed Hurt’s claims against the New Mexico defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finally, Hurt, citing no relevant authority, contends that the district court “improperly dismissed the remaining claims without conducting a claim-by-claim, defendant-by-defendant, and relief-specific analysis.” But the magistrate judge’s recommendations, adopted by the district court, explained the grounds for dismissing the remaining claims and defendants. And his contention that he should have been allowed amendment or jurisdictional discovery is similarly unavailing. See Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted) (“When the lack of personal jurisdiction is clear, discovery would serve no purpose and should not be permitted.”); Brockman v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 397 F. App’x 18, 23 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[A] refusal to allow amendment is not an abuse of discretion when the proposed amendment would be futile.”). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4