Full Opinion

Case: 26-50320 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-50320 November 9, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk Deliris Montanez Berrios, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Ricardo Samaniego, El Paso County Judge; Robert S. Howden, Secretary of the State of Texas, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-455 ______________________________ Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Plaintiff Deliris Montanez Berrios, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her second Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen the case. Plaintiff also moves for an injunction pending appeal to preserve election-related records and for expedited consideration of that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-50320 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-50320 motion. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY the motion for injunction pending appeal. Background Following an unsuccessful write-in campaign in the 2024 election for Texas’s Sixteenth Congressional District, Plaintiff sued El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego and the Texas Secretary of State alleging several election-related violations. On January 30, 2026, the district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s motions to (a) join defendants, (b) add a cause of action, and (c) lift the stay on discovery and other deadlines. The stay was imposed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case. The next day, Plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The district court denied both motions on March 18, 2026. On March 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case and requested reconsideration of the preliminary injunction denial. 1 The following day, the district court denied the motion for “essentially the same reasons stated in the [district court’s] March 18, 2026, Order denying Plaintiff’s First Motion to Reopen.” Plaintiff timely appealed the denial of the second Rule 60(b) motion. Discussion Rule 60(b) Motion Beginning with the denial of Plaintiff’s second Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case, her briefing largely ignores that motion and instead _____________________ 1 Because the parties do not address the denial of the preliminary injunction reconsideration, we only address the second Rule 60(b) denial. 2 Case: 26-50320 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-50320 challenges the district court’s dismissal of her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and its denial of her other motions to add defendants and a cause of action. However, “Rule 60(b) simply may not be used as an end run to effect an appeal outside the specified time limits.” Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 288 (5th Cir. 1985). A Rule 60(b) motion can toll the deadline to appeal a final judgment, but that requires the motion to be timely filed. Under the federal appellate rules, a Rule 60 motion tolls the time to file an appeal only “if the motion is filed within the time allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); see Frew v. Young, 992 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2021). The time allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59 is twenty- eight days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. But Plaintiff filed both motions to reopen the case after that deadline. Therefore, our review is confined to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s second Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case. See Anderson v. City of New Orleans, 38 F.4th 472, 479 (5th Cir. 2022). “It is not enough that the granting of [Rule 60(b)] relief might have been permissible, or even warranted—denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir. 1977)). Neither Plaintiff’s second motion nor her briefing on appeal show that the district court abused its discretion. The second motion broadly claimed the district court was “obstructing justice and violating the Plaintiff’s civil rights,” recapped federal legislation related to elections, and asked the district court, for the first time, to order preservation of relevant election- related records. And in her initial brief on appeal, Plaintiff did not identify 3 Case: 26-50320 Document: 64-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-50320 any subsection of Rule 60(b) that warranted re-opening the case. 2 “Although we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Plaintiff’s arguments focused exclusively on the underlying judgment that dismissed her claims. The only mention of the Rule 60(b) motion in the initial brief was in the procedural history. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s second Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case. Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal Plaintiff moves for an injunction pending appeal to preserve election- related records to “ensure that potentially material evidence remains available while this [c]ourt considers the pending appeal.” (emphasis added). For such requests, the movant must show “(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction; (3) that the balance of hardships weighs in their favor if injunctive relief is granted; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 13 F.4th 434, 441 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i); Fla. Businessmen for Free Enter. v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (5th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff establishes none of the injunction factors. She has not made clear how the records at issue have any relevance to the case, and she has not shown that there would be irreparable injury in _____________________ 2 Although Plaintiff repackaged her arguments in her reply brief to seek “vacatur of the March 23 denial and remand so the district court can evaluate the Rule 60 request under the correct legal framework,” such arguments are forfeited. United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, even by pro se litigants . . . , are [forfeited].”). 4 Case: 26-50320 Document: 64-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 No. 26-50320 the absence of injunction. Plaintiff does not show that the records are not being preserved or will not be preserved, and she “recognizes that the absence of concrete proof of threatened loss weighs against an injunction.” Plaintiff’s arguments and exhibits mainly focus on a request to inspect election records concerning the March 2026 primary—an election not at issue in this case. Even if those records were relevant to this case, Plaintiff has not shown that the records have not or will not be preserved. Plaintiff’s exhibits prove that many records will be available for inspection, which will be scheduled for January 2027 “due to the Elections Department currently preparing for the upcoming 2026 general election and per the Elections Inspection Policy.” Other records were already provided electronically to Plaintiff. There was only one request for security “access logs” where the Elections Department stated it had no responsive records. Injunctive relief is improper. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s motion for injunction pending appeal is DENIED. 5