Blakney v. Fed Ex et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Ordered that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is ORDERED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 11/7/16. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J.T. BLAKNEY
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:16CV368-LG-RHW

FED EX, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of the Complaint filed by pro se
Plaintiff J.T. Blakney. The Court previously informed Plaintiff that it was of the
opinion that the Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to the federal RICO
statute or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court thus gave Plaintiff an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint, including filing a RICO Statement as
required by Local Uniform Civil Rule 83.8. (See Order, ECF No. 3); Carroll v. Fort
James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006). The Court also specifically
cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file the Amended Complaint and RICO Statement
would result in dismissal of this action. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not complied
with the Court’s Order or otherwise shown why his claims should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).
Plaintiff has sued Fed Ex, U.S. Postal, ATT, Cable One, Parcel Postal, Rite
Aid, Long Beach Police, CSL Plasma, Mississippi Power, Waste Pro, and AMR
Ambulance Service. He alleges that these Defendants have violated RICO and

committed fraud by “importing drugs across interstate lines, using the residence of
Guice Place and Saw Grass” and that he has “witnessed the transport and import
for over 10 years and residents kids are in my neighborhood.” (See Compl., ECF No.
1).
“To state a civil RICO claim under any subsection in 18 U.S.C. § 1962, there
must be: (1) a person who engaged in (2) a pattern of racketeering activity (3)
connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise.”
Jackson v. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People, 546 F. App’x 438, 441-42
(5th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In addition, “[a] plaintiff
must establish standing to bring a civil RICO claim.” Id. at 442. To do so, he “must
satisfy two elements . . . : injury and causation.” See id.
Construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally in his favor, the Court is of the
opinion that those allegations still fail to establish any of the necessary
requirements to state a RICO claim, much less all of them. Plaintiff does not even
identify what section or sections of § 1962 he claims have been violated.1 Instead,
the Complaint “is essentially incomprehensible with respect to whether matters
constituting valid RICO claims . . . against the respective defendants are stated and
if so what these claims are.” See Old Time Enters., Inc. v. Int’l Coffee Corp., 862
F.2d 1213, 1219 (5th Cir. 1989).
1

The Court also finds that to the extent Plaintiff’s RICO allegations are
premised on fraud – and this remains unclear – he has failed to comply Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). See Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d
1134, 1138 (5th Cir. 1992).
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is ORDERED to mail a copy
of this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 7th day of November, 2016.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3