Opinion
SA-24-CV-326-XR (HJB) SA-24-CV-505-XR (HJB)
07-09-2024
ALLEN WEAH, Plaintiff, v. ESTANCIA VILLAS, LLC, and STATE OF TEXAS. Defendants.
To the Honorable Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Henry J. Bemporad, United States Magistrate Judge
This Report and Recommendation concerns the status of two consolidated cases,which were automatically referred to the undersigned for disposition applications to proceed in forma pauperis and for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), pursuant to this Division's October 8, 2019, Standing Order. (See SA-24-CV-326-XR (HJB), Text Order dated April 1, 2024; SA-24-CV-505-XR (HJB), Text Order dated May 16, 2024.) For the reasons set out below, I recommend that the cases be DISMISSED for failure to state a plausible claim for relief over which this Court has jurisdiction.
The undersigned ordered the two cases consolidated as Plaintiff had filed identical papers with identical factual allegations in each case. (See SA-24-CV-505-XR (HJB), Docket Entry 5.) The order required that all pleadings be filed in the lead case, SA-24-CV-326-XR (HJB)..
I. Background.
Plaintiff filed the first of his two cases April 1, 2024, naming only Estancia Villas, LLC as a Defendant and invoking federal question jurisdiction. (See Docket Entries 1-1, 1-2.) On April 11, 2024, the undersigned noted that Plaintiff's complaint appeared only to raise a state-law eviction issue and accordingly ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction over the dispute. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed two documents, but neither appear to show that the Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. (See Docket Entries 7 and 8.) Three days later, Plaintiff filed his second case, using the same documents; however, he named the State of Texas as the sole Defendant. (See SA-24-CV-505-XR (HJB), Docket Entry 1-1, at 1; Docket Entry 1-2.) As with his claims against Estancia Villas, LLC, he did not explain how the Court would have jurisdiction over his claims against the State either.
In light of the identical pleadings filed, the undersigned consolidated the two cases. (See SA-24-CV-505, Docket Entry 5.) The undersigned subsequently extended the deadline for Plaintiff to show that he has a plausible claim against either Defendant over which the Court could exercise jurisdiction. (Docket Entries 12.) The order specifically warned that if Plaintiff failed to make such a showing, the undersigned would recommend that the consolidated cases be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff appealed the consolidation order. (See Docket Entry 13.)
Plaintiff responded with an amended complaint which purported to set out “the difference between [the] cause for claim against Estancia Villas, LLC & [the] State of Texas.” (Docket Entry 18.) The amended complaint stated that Plaintiff's case was “not a diversity case,” as “[a]ll parties are citizens of the same state.” (Id. at 2.) Instead, Plaintiff purported to raise federal claims against each Defendant: against Estancia Villas, LLC for fair housing violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3613, and 3617, as well as constitutional violations under the First, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments; and against the State of Texas for deprivation of civil rights under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, et seq. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also sought “post judgment federal prosecution” against both Defendants under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 2340. Although it identifies these purported claims, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations against either Defendant to support said claims in his amended complaint.
Plaintiff had also mentioned § 2340 in his original pleading, but the statute provides definitions only; it establishes neither a crime nor a civil cause of action.
II. Analysis.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain both “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1), and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). If “at any time . . . the court determines” that a complaint fails to meet these requirements, it “shall dismiss the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While the complaint does not require detailed factual allegations, it must contain enough to “raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. And it requires more than labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements to avoid dismissal. Id.
Although Plaintiff has alleged federal question jurisdiction in his pleadings, he has failed to allege a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff's amended complaint identifies his purported causes of action in single, conclusory sentences; it pleads no facts whatsoever, let alone enough to show a plausible claims for relief. (See Docket Entry 18.) And none of Plaintiff's prior pleadings plausibly show that he is entitled to relief under any of the federal statutes referenced in the amended complaint. (See Docket Entries 1-1, 7, and 8.) In particular, Plaintiff has not explained how Estancia Villas, LLC discriminated against him based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604 and related fair housing laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f). Nor has he explained why the State of Texas would not be immune from a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or other federal civil rights provisions. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (sovereign immunity bars actions against a state or a state official unless Congress has abrogated the immunity or the state has specifically waived its immunity); Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002) (same). Finally, while Plaintiff calls for post-judgment criminal prosecution of Defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, he has no standing to demand criminal prosecution by federal authorities. Gill v. State of Tex., 153 Fed.Appx. 261, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A] private citizen . . . has no standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal statute”) (citations omitted).
Title 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) permits a private civil action to enforce federal racketeering laws, but Plaintiff neither cites that provision nor explains how it would be applicable in this case.
Given Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief, despite receiving multiple opportunities to amend his complaint in order to do so, dismissal is appropriate.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Plaintiff's complaints in these consolidated cases be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IV. Notice of Right to Object.
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the Clerk of Court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the same, unless this time period is modified by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The parties shall file any objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the objections on all other parties. An objecting party must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo review by the District Court. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to, proposed findings and conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).