Hrncir v. IRS: Pro Se Appellate Forfeiture—Failure to Brief Standing and Provide Record-Supported Argument Requires Affirmance of a Rule 12(b)(1) Dismissal

Introduction

In Hrncir v. IRS (5th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished), a pro se plaintiff, Anthony Hrncir, sued a wide range of federal, state, and local entities—including the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Trade Commission, Social Security Administration, and Department of State—asserting violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Hrncir alleged, in broad terms, that his name and “proprietary work” were monetized without his consent and that government agencies failed to respond to a June 29, 2024 letter seeking “full disclosure, accounting, and mediation,” and failed to maintain accurate records about him.

The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, principally on the ground that Hrncir did not plead facts establishing Article III standing as to any defendant. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed—not by re-litigating the merits of FOIA/Privacy Act compliance, but by applying a strict appellate-preservation framework: Hrncir failed to address the standing ruling and failed to adequately brief his alternative jurisdictional arguments.

Key Issues

  • Appellate preservation: What happens when an appellant fails to challenge the district court’s stated basis for dismissal (standing) and offers only conclusory, record-unsupported assertions?
  • Rule 12(b)(1) methodology: When may a court consider evidence outside the pleadings on jurisdiction, and what is required to argue that jurisdictional facts are “merits-intertwined”?
  • FOIA/Privacy Act gatekeeping: Whether claims can proceed absent plausible allegations (or evidence) of a proper FOIA/Privacy Act request and exhaustion, and whether those statutes reach state/local entities.

Publication status: The panel noted the opinion is not designated for publication (5th Cir. R. 47.5). While nonprecedential, it illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s operational approach to appellate forfeiture and jurisdictional pleading/briefing in FOIA/Privacy Act cases.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held:

  • Hrncir abandoned any challenge to the district court’s standing determination because his appellate brief did not address it.
  • His alternative assertion—that the district court wrongly resolved “contested jurisdictional and merits-intertwined issues” without discovery—was forfeited for inadequate briefing because it lacked meaningful analysis tying the cited cases to the facts alleged.
  • His remaining assertions (agency deference, inaccurate records, due process, need for remand) were also forfeited for conclusory presentation and lack of record citations.

Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1) Standard of review and Rule 12(b)(1) framework

  • Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 250 (5th Cir. 2015)
    Used for the governing standard: Rule 12(b)(1) dismissals are reviewed de novo. This frames the appellate posture while underscoring that de novo review does not cure forfeiture—an appellant must still present preserved, adequately briefed issues.
  • In re S. Recycling, L.L.C., 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020)
    Cited for the burden allocation: the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, that burden remained with Hrncir, and the district court’s standing dismissal reflected a failure to plead facts satisfying Article III minima.
  • Morris v. Thompson, 852 F.3d 416, 419 (5th Cir. 2017)
    Supports the principle that on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court may consider the complaint, undisputed facts in the record, and resolve disputed facts. This is significant to Hrncir’s complaint that the court relied on agency declarations; Morris is a doctrinal answer to that complaint—jurisdictional fact development may include evidentiary submissions.
  • Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)
    Quoted for the cautionary standard that dismissal is proper only if it appears “certain” the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts entitling relief. The Fifth Circuit did not use Ramming to reopen the merits; it used it as part of the black-letter Rule 12(b)(1) landscape, then resolved the appeal on abandonment/forfeiture grounds.

2) Standing and the consequences of not briefing the dispositive ground

  • TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021)
    The opinion included TransUnion in a footnote to restate the standing elements: concrete injury, traceability, and redressability. The district court dismissed for lack of standing; on appeal, Hrncir did not engage those elements. TransUnion thus functions as the substantive benchmark Hrncir failed to meet (or at least failed to contest on appeal).
  • Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995)
    Cited to emphasize that liberal construction of pro se briefs does not eliminate the obligation to brief issues sufficiently to preserve them. This principle was central: Hrncir’s pro se status did not excuse his failure to address standing.
  • Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)
    The court relied on Brinkmann for a hard-edged rule: if an appellant fails to identify error in the basis for the judgment, it is as if he did not appeal. This is the decisive appellate move—affirmance based on abandonment rather than a full merits review.

3) Inadequate briefing and waiver/forfeiture of alternative jurisdictional theories

  • Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946)
    Hrncir cited Bell to argue the district court decided merits issues under the guise of jurisdiction. The panel did not reject Bell as a legal proposition; instead, it held Hrncir failed to explain how Bell applied to his specific allegations and the district court’s ruling—leading to forfeiture.
  • Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981)
    Similarly invoked by Hrncir for the “jurisdiction vs. merits” intertwinement concept. The panel’s treatment is instructive: citing the right cases is not enough; an appellant must develop a fact-anchored argument showing why jurisdictional fact-finding should be deferred, limited, or merged with merits adjudication.
  • Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021)
    Used to support forfeiture for inadequate briefing. The panel applied Rollins repeatedly to reject Hrncir’s undeveloped arguments.
  • Nichols v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 495 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2007)
    Reinforces that deficient analysis results in waiver/forfeiture. The panel cited Nichols to underscore that a party cannot gesture at an issue; the brief must do the analytical work.
  • Kelley v. Alpine Site Servs., Inc., 110 F.4th 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2024)
    Applied for the requirement of “meaningful analyses” rather than “conclusory allusions.” This directly answered Hrncir’s generalized claims about due process and agency error.
  • United States v. Rojas, 812 F.3d 382, 407 n.15 (5th Cir. 2016)
    Cited alongside Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) for the requirement of record citations. Hrncir’s failure to cite record support independently justified rejecting his appellate contentions.

Legal Reasoning

1) The appeal failed at the threshold: standing abandonment

The district court dismissed for lack of standing—an Article III jurisdictional prerequisite. The Fifth Circuit did not reweigh standing because Hrncir’s brief did not attack the district court’s standing analysis. Under Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, that omission is effectively fatal: appellate courts review claimed errors, and a party who does not claim error in the dispositive ground does not obtain review of that ground.

The opinion’s reasoning is procedural but consequential: de novo review does not matter if the appellant forfeits the issue. Even if the underlying standing question were debatable, the court treats it as unchallenged and affirms.

2) Jurisdiction-versus-merits arguments require developed, fact-tethered briefing

Hrncir tried to reframe the case as one where the district court improperly resolved “contested” facts and “merits-intertwined” issues without discovery—an argument that can, in appropriate cases, matter under the logic often associated with Bell v. Hood and Williamson v. Tucker.

But the panel did not decide whether the district court’s handling was correct on that axis; it held Hrncir forfeited the point by failing to explain (1) which jurisdictional facts were disputed, (2) how those disputes overlapped with the merits of a FOIA/Privacy Act claim, and (3) what legal consequence should follow (e.g., limited discovery, conversion to summary judgment, or deferral of fact findings).

3) Independent briefing defects: conclusory assertions and no record citations

The panel also rejected Hrncir’s remaining contentions—agency deference, inaccurate records, due process, and need for remand—because they were presented as broad accusations rather than arguments. By invoking Kelley v. Alpine Site Servs., Inc., Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8), and United States v. Rojas, the court emphasized two minimum conditions of appellate review:

  • Analytical sufficiency: the brief must show why the lower court erred, not merely assert it.
  • Record grounding: the brief must cite where in the record the asserted facts are supported.

4) The court’s jurisdictional posture still reflects FOIA/Privacy Act gatekeeping (even if not reached on appeal)

Although the Fifth Circuit affirmed on appellate forfeiture grounds, the district court’s alternative rationales (noted in the opinion) matter for understanding the case’s underlying legal structure:

  • FOIA/Privacy Act coverage limits: claims against state and local entities fail because those statutes generally regulate federal agencies, not state or municipal bodies.
  • Exhaustion / valid request: the federal defendants submitted declarations that they did not receive a proper FOIA/Privacy Act request (or received a letter not framed as such), supporting dismissal.

In short, even absent the standing abandonment, Hrncir faced significant statutory and administrative hurdles.

Impact

1) Practical impact on pro se appellate practice in the Fifth Circuit

The opinion reinforces a recurring Fifth Circuit message: pro se litigants receive liberal construction, not a waiver of appellate rules. If a district court dismisses on standing, an appellant must directly attack that ruling—by applying standing elements to pleaded facts and explaining traceability and redressability as to each defendant.

2) Strong reinforcement of “issue selection” discipline on appeal

The case underscores that appellate courts often affirm when the appellant fails to engage the dispositive ground, even if other issues (FOIA, Privacy Act, exhaustion, evidentiary submissions) might be debatable in another posture. The “dispositive-ground rule” shapes litigation strategy: appellants must prioritize addressing the reason they lost.

3) FOIA/Privacy Act litigants: request formation and exhaustion remain central

Even though the appeal turned on forfeiture, the case spotlights a recurring failure mode in FOIA/Privacy Act suits: plaintiffs who cannot show they submitted a proper request (and pursued administrative remedies) risk dismissal at the jurisdictional or threshold stage—often supported by agency declarations.

4) Doctrinal impact is limited by nonpublication, but the reasoning is transferable

Because the decision is unpublished, it is not intended as binding precedent under the court’s rules. Nonetheless, the cited waiver/forfeiture authorities (Brinkmann, Rollins, Nichols, Kelley) are published and binding; the opinion is best understood as a straightforward application of those established principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Subject-matter jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)): The court’s power to hear a case. If jurisdiction is missing, the court must dismiss—even if the plaintiff’s story seems compelling.
  • Standing: A constitutional requirement that the plaintiff show a concrete personal harm, caused by the defendant, that a court can likely fix. The opinion cites TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for this three-part test.
  • Exhaustion (FOIA/Privacy Act): Generally, a requester must submit a proper request to the agency and follow the agency’s process (including appeals) before suing.
  • Merits-intertwined jurisdictional facts: Sometimes the facts needed to decide jurisdiction overlap with the facts needed to decide who wins on the merits (a theme associated with cases like Bell v. Hood and Williamson v. Tucker). But a party must explain the overlap and why it changes the procedure (e.g., need for discovery).
  • Abandonment/forfeiture on appeal: If an appellant does not argue that the district court’s key ruling was wrong—and support that claim with analysis and record citations—the appellate court will treat the issue as waived and affirm.

Conclusion

Hrncir v. IRS is less a FOIA/Privacy Act merits decision than a procedural warning about federal appellate practice. The Fifth Circuit affirmed because Hrncir did not challenge the district court’s standing dismissal and did not adequately brief his alternative jurisdictional theories with analysis and record citations. The decision underscores that pro se status does not relieve an appellant of the obligation to (1) attack the dispositive ground, (2) connect cited precedent to the pleaded facts, and (3) support assertions with record references. In the broader context, the opinion reflects how jurisdictional doctrines—especially standing and exhaustion-related gatekeeping—often determine the fate of information-access lawsuits before any substantive review of agency conduct occurs.