Johnson v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al

Filing 86

ORDER AND REASONS denying 68 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 5/29/2018. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WES W.C. JOHNSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No.: 17-357

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Rec.
Doc.68) filed by Plaintiff Wes “W.C.” Johnson and an opposition
thereto (Rec. Doc. 72) filed by Defendants. 1

Having considered

the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This lawsuit derives from an alleged breach of contract and
deprivation of constitutional rights. (Rec. Doc. 1.)

The named

Defendants are the National office of the National Association of
the

Advancement

of

Colored

People

(“NAACP”);

Cornell

William

Brooks, the former President and CEO of the NAACP; Roslyn M. Brock,
the Chairman of the NAACP’s Board of Directors; and Carmen Watkins,
the NAACP’s Region VI Director (collectively, “Defendants”).

In

the complaint filed on January 13, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that he

1

Plaintiff also filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support of his motion. (Rec.
Doc. 79.)

filed grievances with the National office of the NAACP pursuant to
the

NAACP’s

constitution

and

bylaws

seeking

relief

for

inappropriate conduct by elected officers of the New Orleans Branch
of the NAACP (the “New Orleans Branch”). Rather than investigate
his claims, Plaintiff alleges that the National office threatened
to either dissolve its New Orleans Branch or affect Plaintiff’s
membership status to chill litigation.
Furthermore, Plaintiff complains that the election of the
chapter officers was not properly conducted in 2016.

As a result,

Plaintiff has now sued Defendants for (1) not investigating his
complaints of January 19, 2016, and April 18, 2016; (2) permitting
ineligible candidates to run for local NAACP leadership positions;
and

(3)

failing

to

invalidate

the

illegal

election

results.

Plaintiff also claims he has been deprived of his constitutional
rights under the First, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff asks this

Court to force the National office to address his complaints as to
the voting irregularities and to require that all elections be
rescinded until the proper execution of the NAACP’s constitutional
protections

can

be

administered.

Finally,

Plaintiff

seeks

$100,000 in punitive damages to be given to the New Orleans Branch,
a

judgment

forcing

Defendants

to

reorganize

the

NAACP’s

constitution to comply with the United States Constitution, and
for all costs incurred.
2

On October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the
Complaint (Rec. Doc. 54) seeking to add four defendants to the
case for causing “additional injury to the prosecution of this
cause” and denying Plaintiff his rights.
sought

to

add

(1)

Dr.

Ernest

Johnson,

Specifically, Plaintiff
the

President

of

the

Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP; (2) Gloria Johnson, the
President of the New Orleans Branch; (3) Laurene McMillan, the
Secretary of the New Orleans Branch; and (4) Danatus King, Sr.,
former president of the New Orleans Branch of the NAACP and current
counsel

for

Magistrate

the

Judge

named
denied

Defendants.
Plaintiff’s

On

April

Motion

primarily that Plaintiff’s claims were futile.

to

18,

2018,

Amend,

the

finding

Plaintiff objected

to the ruling, which this Court overruled on May 11, 2018.

(Rec.

Doc. 85.)
After Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend but before the
Magistrate issued her order denying it, Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Rec. Doc. 68) and a Motion to
Expedite said motion (Rec. Doc. 69).

On January 25, 2018, the

Court denied the motion to expedite and ordered that the motion
would be considered on the briefs and without a hearing unless the
Court otherwise notified the parties. (Rec. Doc. 70.)

Defendants

filed an opposition to the motion on February 6, 2018. (Rec. Doc.
72.)

On

February

26,

2018,

Plaintiff

3

filed

a

Supplemental

Memorandum in support of his motion.

(Rec. Doc. 79.) The motion

is now before the Court on the briefs and without oral argument.
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff asks that an injunction be entered against (1) the
named Defendants, (2) Danatus King (3) Dr. Ernest Johnson, and (4)
the

“Sheriff’s

Deputies

and

other

law

enforcement

agencies.”

Plaintiff argues that a preliminary injunction is necessary in
order to preserve his rights to attend and participate in the
meetings of the New Orleans Branch, to prevent Danatus King and
Dr. Johnson from making false and derogatory statements about
Plaintiff, and to prevent any actions that would allow the New
Orleans Branch to be removed from under the administration of the
National

office

without

the

National

NAACP

Mandates

being

explained and implemented first.
Defendants oppose the injunction, arguing that the events
complained of in the motion are unrelated to the events that serve
as the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Second, Defendants argue

that an injunction is inappropriate against Danatus King or Dr.
Johnson because they are not parties in this action.

Defendants

contend that Plaintiff is merely attempting to add new causes of
action and new parties in contravention of the Court’s November 3,
2017 Scheduling Order. See Rec. Doc. 59 (“Amendments to pleadings,
third-party actions, cross-claims and counter-claims shall NOT be
filed”)(emphasis in original).

Next, Defendants argue that court
4

interference with the internal affairs of a private association is
only

appropriate

in

cases

where

the

complained

of

action

is

arbitrary or capricious. Defendants argue the actions complained
of here were not arbitrary or capricious; rather, they were based
on information from the New Orleans Branch’s secretary and the
National office that Plaintiff was not a member in good standing.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the law of this Circuit, a plaintiff must make a clear
showing that his case satisfies the following four criteria before
he

can

receive

a

preliminary

injunction:

(1)

a

substantial

likelihood exists that he will succeed on the merits of his claim;
(2)

a

substantial

threat

of

irreparable

harm

exists

if

the

injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any
harm to the defendants if the injunction is granted; and (4) the
injunction will not undermine the public interest. See Valley v.
Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047, 1051 (5th Cir. 1997).
He must satisfy all four factors; a failure to satisfy even one of
the four factors requires a denial of the preliminary injunction.
See Mississippi Power & Light v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760
F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).

The United States Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals has frequently cautioned that a preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” which should be granted
only if the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on
all four of the above prerequisites. See e.g., Cherokee Pump &
5

Equipment Inc. v. Aurora Pump, 38 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1994).
As a result, “[t]he decision to grant a preliminary injunction is
to be treated as the exception rather than the rule.” Id.; accord
House the Homeless, Inc. v. Widnall, 94 F.3d 176, 180 (5th Cir.
1996).
Courts are required to liberally construe a pro se litigant's
pleadings.

Jones v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d

756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018).

The Supreme Court has held that pro se

complaints should be held “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyer.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). This leniency, however, is not unlimited.

Even those

proceeding pro se, “cannot flout procedural rules—they must abide
by the same rules that apply to other litigants.” Mala v. Crown
Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against various individuals in
order to preserve his right to attend and participate in the
meetings of the New Orleans Branch, to prevent Danatus King and
Dr. Johnson from making false and derogatory statements about
Plaintiff, and to prevent the New Orleans Branch from returning to
its normal operations.

However, the Court need not address the

6

merits of Plaintiff’s motion because the Court finds that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
possessing

only

the

authority

granted

by

the

United

States

Constitution and conferred by the United States Congress.

Howery

v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).

As such,

courts have a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction
before addressing the merits of the case.

Packard v. Provident

Nat'l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1049 (3d Cir. 1993).

The Court “must

presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party
seeking

the

federal

forum.”

Howery,

243

F.3d

at

916

(citing

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377).

“A

motion for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
order does not, alone, confer subject matter jurisdiction on a
federal court; instead, an independent basis for asserting federal
question or diversity jurisdiction must be shown in order for the
court to grant injunctive relief.”

Smith v. Haband, 17-1677, 2017

WL 4883252, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2017).
Plaintiff

contends

that

this

Court

has

subject-matter

jurisdiction over his complaint because his claims raise federal
question jurisdiction.

Federal courts can sustain jurisdiction on

the ground that the complaint raises a federal question. See 28
U.S.C.

§

1331.

Plaintiff

contends
7

that

federal

question

jurisdiction exists by virtue of his claim that Defendants violated
his constitutional rights under amendments 1, 6, 7, 9, and 14.
However, none of Plaintiff’s claims are cognizable as federal
causes of action.

In order to maintain a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that he has been deprived
of a federally protected right by a person acting ‘under color of
state law.’” Dupree v. Mfume, 3-2240, 2003 WL 2247744, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Oct. 20, 2003) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

Plaintiff’s allegations name only a private

organization (the NAACP) and private individuals as Defendants.
None of these Defendants are state actors who are abridging the
Plaintiff’s

rights.

Moreover,

many

of

the

amendments

that

Plaintiff relies on are inapplicable to the facts asserted and
cannot be cited by Plaintiff as a cause of action against the named
Defendants. 2

As such, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim

to invoke federal question jurisdiction.
Liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that
the remaining claims involve breach of contract under Louisiana

2

For example, the Sixth Amendment provides for speedy trials and other rights
in a criminal prosecution. U.S. Const. amend. VI. As this is a civil action
brought by Plaintiff, this amendment is inapplicable here.
The Seventh
Amendment provides for jury trials in civil cases. This case is currently set
for a jury trial therefore, there is no infringement of that right. Finally,
the Ninth Amendment does not provide Plaintiff with a cause of action. See
Johnson v. Texas Bd. of Criminal Justice, 281 F. App’x 319, 320 (5th Cir. 2008)
(“The Ninth Amendment does not confer substantive rights upon which civil rights
claims may be based.”).

8

state law for Defendants’ failure to abide by the NAACP bylaws. 3
Without
diversity

federal

question

jurisdiction

in

jurisdiction,
order

Plaintiff’s state law claims.

to

the

Court

adjudicate

the

must

have

merits

of

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

jurisdiction is proper in federal district court where the action
involves citizens of different states and an amount in controversy,
exclusive of interest and costs, in excess of $75,000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Here, there is diversity among the parties;

Plaintiff is a Louisiana resident and all of the Defendants are
nonresidents. 4

However, it is clear that Plaintiff’s claims fail

under the second prong of the diversity jurisdiction analysis, the
amount in controversy.

The relief sought by Plaintiff is almost

exclusively in the form of either injunctive or declarative relief.
“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well
established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value
of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver.
Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977).

Here, there is no object which

satisfies the requisite amount.

The only monetary damage that

3 The NAACP is a non-profit corporation.
Under Louisiana law, the bylaws of an
association or corporation constitute a contract between the organization and
its members. See Elfer v. Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n No. 12 et al., 179
La. 383, 392 (La. 1934). The general rule in Louisiana is that the courts will
not interfere with the internal affairs of a private association, except in
cases when the affairs and proceedings have not been conducted fairly and
honestly or when the action complained of is capricious, arbitrary or unjustly
discriminatory. See Sanders v. Louisiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 242 So. 2d
19, 25 (La. Ct. App. 1970)(citations omitted).
4

Although some of the people over which Plaintiff seeks an injunction are
Louisiana residents, those individuals are not parties to this case.

9

Plaintiff seeks is $100,000 in punitive damages.

Under Louisiana

law, punitive damages are prohibited unless provided by statute.
See International Harvester Credit v. Seale, 518 So. 2d 1039, 1041
(La. 1988).

There is no statute which would permit punitive

damages in this case.

Therefore, this litigation fails to meet

the minimum requirements for this Court’s exercise of diversity
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court has neither diversity jurisdiction nor
federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Therefore,

the complaint is dismissed without prejudice to his pursuing his
claims in an appropriate state court.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Rec. Doc. 68) is hereby DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of May, 2018.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10