Patricia Callins v. Janet Napolitano
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-10048 Affirmed] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 07/05/2011 [11-10048]
Case: 11-10048 Document: 00511477364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
May 13, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
PATRICIA I CALLINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant
SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO, Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CV-893
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff–Appellant Patricia Callins appeals, pro se, the district court’s
dismissal of her in forma pauperis civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state
a claim, reasoning that the complaint stated “nothing more than a conclusory
allegation with no plausible, supporting facts.” A district court may sua sponte
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
Case: 11-10048 Document: 00511477364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2011
dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if it “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
After reviewing Callins’s complaint, we agree with the district court that
her complaint failed to state a claim. Callins’s complaint did not plead sufficient
factual matter to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. —,129
S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). To meet this pleading standard, Callins’s complaint
must state more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. Furthermore, we do not consider additional factual allegations
stated in Callins’s brief before this court, or in her notice of appeal, because
those facts were not pled to the district court when it rendered its decision. See
Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir. 1996)
(“Normally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts
must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and documents
either attached to or incorporated in the complaint.”).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court dismissing
Callins’s claim without prejudice.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?