Williams v. Justice of Peace Princint 7 et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER... all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff against Justice of Peace, JP Morgan, or Branston are hereby dismissed. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/10/2014) (krg)
r
----,
DISTRIC'fOFTEXA.S
IN
.
r FILED
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~OURT I
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA~
1 SEP 1 0 20J4
7
('1.,...
· ,,·.RK,
vs.
§
§
§
§
§
§
f
JUSTICE OF PEACE PRECINCT 7,
ET AL.,
- - - -..
U.S. DlSTRfCT
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
NO. 4:14-CV-358-A
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
On July 8, 2014, the court ordered plaintiff, Jenene
Williams a/k/a Jenene House of Williams, to file an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this court, and warned that failure to
comply with the order may result in imposition of sanctions,
including dismissal of the action, without further notice.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order, and the court has
concluded that no lesser sanction than dismissal for want of
prosecution would adequately address that failure.
I.
Background
Plaintiff initiated this action in the District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas, 17th Judicial District, on May 8, 2014, by
a document titled "Original Petition and Affidavit Of Fact to
II
1
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JENENE WILLIAMS A/K/A
JENENE HOUSE OF WILLIAMS,
'
I
i
Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Writ of Possession."
The
defendants named were Justice of Peace Precinct 7 (uJustice of
Peace")~
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(uJp Morgan"), and Branston
Properties LLC (uBranston"). The allegations of the pleading did
not make sense, but one might speculate that plaintiff was
seeking some kind of relief from a foreclosure on real property
and a writ of possession order issued by Justice of Peace.
The
pleading requests that a writ of possession be vacated and the
uproperty be re-conveyed to Sixela, Inc. immediately."
Notice of
Removal, Ex. A-2 at 4.
In the notice of removal filed by JP Morgan on May 20, 2014,
JP Morgan had difficulty defining the nature of the claims made
by plaintiff in her state court pleading, but did satisfy the
court that the court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28
u.s.c.
§
1331.
On May 27, 2014, JP Morgan filed a motion to dismiss for
failure of plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
As JP Morgan correctly asserted in its motion and
supporting brief, plaintiff failed to allege any facts that
would, if accepted as true, support a conclusion that she has any
cause of action against any of the named defendants.
On June 26,
2014, and again on July 3, 2014, plaintiff filed documents titled
uNotice And Demand To Strike Response From J.P. Morgan Chase
2
Bank, N.A. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Due To
Jurisdiction Challenge," which the court treated as a response to
JP Morgan's motion to dismiss.
Rather than to address the merit of the motion to dismiss,
the court issued an order denying the motion and directing
plaintiff by August 7, 2014, to file an amended complaint that
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rules of this court.
The order cautioned plaintiff that failure
to comply with it may result in the imposition of sanctions,
including dismissal, without further notice.
The only thing plaintiff filed by August 7, 2014, was a
document titled "Re: Judgment And Writ Of Possession JP0714E00073404 Original Petition and Affidavit Of Fact to Vacate And
Set Aside Judgment and Writ of Possession."
Its contents were
basically a repeat of the things plaintiff put in her state court
pleading.
In other words, she failed to comply with the
directive of the July 8, 2014 order that by August 7, 2014, she
file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this court.
The document
plaintiff filed on August 7, 2014, made no more sense than the
one she filed in state court.
Since August 7, 2014, plaintiff has filed several additional
documents.
On August 12, 2014, she filed three documents, one
3
titled "Notice And Demand To Strike Response From J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
Due To Jurisdiction Challenge," another titled "Writ in the
Nature of Discovery and Disclosure," and another titled "Amended
Original Petition and Affidavit of Fact to Vacate and Set Aside
Judgment and Writ of Possession."
None of those documents
provided assistance to the court in understanding the nature of
any cause of action plaintiff might be seeking to assert, much
less the factual basis for any such cause of action.
On
August 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a document titled "Freedom of
Information Act Request Affidavit and Rule 12 Challenge," which
provided no clarity.
On August 21, 2014, Justice of Peace filed a motion to
dismiss asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
On August 22, 2014, JP Morgan
filed a motion to strike based on the failure of plaintiff to
comply with the July 8, 2014 order.
On August 29, 2014, Branston
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
On September 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a document titled
"Notice And Demand To Object To Response From Defendant Branston
Properties, LLC Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
4
And Brief In Support."
In that document, plaintiff repeats some
of the assertions she made in her state court pleading, which
were again stated in the document she filed on August 7, 2014.
Plaintiff has yet to file anything that could be interpreted
to be a meaningful effort to comply with the directive of the
July 8, 2014 order that she file by August 7, 2014, an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this court.
II.
Analysis
A.
Pleading Standards
Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, in a general way, the applicable standard of pleading.
It requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2),
"in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
u.s.
544, 555 (2007)
quotation marks and ellipsis omitted) .
(internal
Although a complaint need
not contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing"
contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than
simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a cause
of action.
Twombly, 550
u.s.
at 555 & n.3.
5
Thus, while a court
must accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as
true, it need not credit bare legal conclusions that are
unsupported by any factual underpinnings.
556 U.S. 662, 669 (2009)
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
("While legal conclusions can provide
the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.").
Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), the facts pleaded must allow
the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is
plausible.
Id.
To allege a plausible right to relief, the facts
pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are merely
consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient.
U.S. at 566-69.
Twombly, 550
"Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief . . .
[is] a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense."
B.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Dismissal for Failure to Comply with the Directive of the
July 8 Order is Appropriate at This Time
Though the pending motions of defendants appear to have
merit, the court has concluded that the appropriate action to be
taken at this time is to dismiss the action for want of
prosecution based on the failure of plaintiff to comply with the
July 8, 2014 order.
The court was careful in the July 8 order to
6
call plaintiff's attention to the basic holdings of the Supreme
Court in Twombly and Iqbal and to explain to plaintiff that she
was obligated in her amended complaint to allege sufficient facts
to show that she had a right to relief that was plausible; and,
the court added that the court does not accept conclusory
allegations as true.
She was ordered to re-plead by July 7,
2014, consistent with the federal requirements.
She has failed
to do so, and has not filed anything to indicate that there are
any facts that would support the grant of relief in favor of
plaintiff against any of the defendants.
The court has concluded that no lesser sanction than
dismissal of all plaintiff's claims and causes of action would
adequately address her conduct in failing to comply with the
July 8, 2014 order.
III.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action
asserted by plaintiff against Justice of Peace, JP Morgan, or
Brans ton
Judge
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?