Kohute v. City of Dallas S.W.A.T. Headquarters

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations. The clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case (Motion(s) 4 terminated). Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 3/6/2025. (wea)

No. 6:24-cv-00494
Kevin James Kohute,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Dallas S.W.A.T. Headquarters,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin James Kohute filed this action alleging a breach
of contract claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case
is referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On January 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and that plaintiff be warned against
the continued practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Doc. 4. Plaintiff’s agent received the report on January 17, 2025. Doc. 5. He
has not filed written objections.
Plaintiff’s complaint requests that the court “file a new case
number for breach of contract.” Doc. 1 at 4. Even if the court were
to construe plaintiff’s claim as a common-law breach of contract
claim (and not a § 1983 claim), this court would not have subject
matter jurisdiction. The parties are lacking complete diversity,
and the amount in controversy is not more than $75,000. This
alone warrants dismissal without prejudice. But plaintiff specifies
that he intends to invoke federal question jurisdiction, citing
§ 1983 as his basis for doing so. Doc. 1 at 3. The court agrees with
the magistrate judge that dismissal with prejudice for failure to
state a claim is thus appropriate in this case.
When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the
court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996).
-1-

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied
that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and
recommendation. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice
for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as
moot.
Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see
Kohute v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex.
Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from
Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed
to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case.
Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file
frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will
impose additional sanctions against him, including potential monetary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir.
1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the
legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including
the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific
prior court approval”).
So ordered by the court on March 6, 2025.

J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER
United States District Judge

-2-