English v. State of Texas et al

Filing 10

ORDER entered: The court finds that Mr. English has failed to meet these standards. The complaint does not set out factual allegations that could state a basis for the relief Mr. English seeks. The complaint is accordingly dismissed without prejudice. An order is dismissal is entered separately. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

Case 4:23-cv-01346 Document 10 Filed on 05/22/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAVID W. ENGLISH, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

May 22, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-1346

ORDER
David English sued the State of Texas, appearing to allege (although it is unclear) housing
discrimination by the City of Houston. The complaint, on its face, is unclear as to the identity of
the defendants, the jurisdiction of this court, and Mr. English’s entitlement to relief. The complaint
states:
I pray the court in my prayer of relief award damages of $200 million or maximum
allowed by law and each instance of the violations, including the federal
commissioners of such strategy No one goes to jail unless you want them to I just
want to live in peace and out of harms way the community harassment “app” goes
away. There are more productive voices in law-enforcement I appreciate your time
and service to the country. I don’t want a lawyer I just want my restitution and move
on with my life productively, helping others live better lives the general public does
not have a right to know everything. I believe that would compromise the pursuit
of justice in these matters. You can set up the trust automatically. I might need civil
protection you can enter that into the court documents if in the pursuit of justice,
the only thing I’m looking for I will need public defendant appointed to me
(Docket Entry No. 1 at 1).
Mr. English claims to have served the defendants, although again, it is unclear who the
defendants are. (Docket Entry Nos. 5–7). There has been no response or appearance by any

Case 4:23-cv-01346 Document 10 Filed on 05/22/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

defendant. Mr. English has filed what has been docketed as a “Prayer for Relief Theresa Williams
DBA Vincent Estates.” (Docket Entry No. 8). This docket entry appears to be a motion for default
judgment. To the extent that this is a motion for default judgment, it is denied. Mr. English has
not adequately named any defendant, and the record does not show that service has been
appropriately made.
In reviewing the pleadings, the court is mindful that Mr. English represents himself. Courts
construe pro se litigants’ pleadings under a less stringent standard of review. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Under this standard, “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to be
liberally construed,’ . . . and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But even under this lenient
standard, a pro se plaintiff must allege more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting reference omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. No matter how well-pleaded the factual
allegations may be, they must reveal that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under a valid legal theory.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061
(5th Cir. 1997).

2

Case 4:23-cv-01346 Document 10 Filed on 05/22/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

The court finds that Mr. English has failed to meet these standards. The complaint does
not set out factual allegations that could state a basis for the relief Mr. English seeks. The
complaint is accordingly dismissed without prejudice. An order is dismissal is entered separately.
SIGNED on May 22, 2023, at Houston, Texas.

________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

3