Jones

Filing 62

RULING granting 57 Motion to Dismiss, dismissing USDA and its secretary, Thomas Vilsack. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 1/31/12. (DCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH L. JONES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-525-JJB-CN
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
ET AL.
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and its secretary, Thomas
Vilsack (collectively, “Federal Defendants”). (Doc. 57). Plaintiff did not file his
opposition by the court ordered deadline. Two weeks after the deadline, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Continue. (Doc. 59). The Magistrate Judge denied the motion.
(Doc. 61). After reviewing the motion to continue, the Court finds none of the
reasons for the request are material to the issues at hand. Further, the Court
finds there is no connexity between the allegations involving the USDA and the
enforcement actions by the state agencies. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge was
correct to deny the motion. Therefore, the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss
will be considered without opposition. For the following reasons, the motion is
GRANTED.
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing the complaint, courts
accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true. C.C. Port, Ltd. v. Davis-

Penn Mortg. Co., 61 F.3d 288, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Courts do not, however,
accept as true all legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). Instead, “the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). That is, a plaintiff must
provide sufficient factual content for the court to reasonably infer that the plaintiff
is entitled to relief based upon the context of the case and the court’s “judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 1949-50. Courts, therefore, must first
identify the conclusory allegations, which do not receive a presumption of truth,
and then determine whether the remaining factual allegations plausibly give rise
to an entitlement of relief. Id. at 1950.
After reviewing the allegations in the Complaint (doc. 1) and Plaintiff’s
More Definite Statement (doc. 55), the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against the Federal Defendants upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
simply makes broad conclusory allegations that the USDA violated the Federal
Housing Act (“FHA”) and engaged in racial and religious discrimination.

He

pleads no facts that flesh out either claim. The clearest factual allegations are
that the USDA led Plaintiff to believe grant and/or loan money would be
forthcoming in the 2005 federal budget. This money never arrived. The USDA
has not adjudicated Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, to the extent he seeks to
appeal an agency decision, it is premature. To the extent he makes general
allegations against the Federal Defendants, there are not enough factual
2

allegations presented to plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief. Therefore,
the Federal Defendants are dismissed from this action.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 57) is GRANTED
and the Federal Defendants are dismissed.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 31, 2012.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA



3