Ezenwa v. United States of America et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Ezenwa's claims against the United States are dismissed with prejudice. State-law claims against defendant Sheryl Fryer are dismissed without prejudice. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (glc4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

MAXWELL CHIBUEZE EZENWA,
BOP #83800-079,

May 10, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,

§

v.

§
§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,

§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-1510

§

Defendants.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The plaintiff, Maxwell Chibueze Ezenwa (BOP #83800-079), has
filed an 18-page typewritten pleading titled "Defamation, Libel,
Slander/ Disparagement"

(Docket Entry No. 1)

(the "Complaint").

The Complaint is not on a court-approved form.

In the Complaint

Ezenwa raises several claims attacking his alleged wrongful arrest,
conviction, sentencing, and imprisonment.
sues

the

United

States

constitutional rights,

for

the

Because the plaintiff

alleged

violation

of

the Complaint is construed to arise -

his
at

least in part - under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971) . 1
claims arising under state law.

Ezenwa also asserts

Ezenwa represents himself and has

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
1

The title a prisoner gives to pro se pleadings is not
controlling; .rather, courts look at the content of the pleading.
United s&tes v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983).

The

court

is

required

to

scrutinize

pleadings

filed

by

prisoners and dismiss the action if the complaint is "f~ivolous,
malicious,

or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief."

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b).

After considering the

pleadings, the court concludes that this case will be dismissed for
the reasons explained below.

I.

Background

Ezenwa is presently incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons at
the low security Federal Correctional
Texas. 2

Ins ti tut ion in Beaumont,

The defendants named in the Complaint are the United

States of America and Sheryl Fryer, an anchorwoman with ABC Channel
13 Eyewitness News. 3
Public records reflect that on April 14,

2021,

a 15-count

superseding indictment was filed in the Southern District of Texas,
Houston

Division,

charging

Ezenwa

with:

(1)

one

count

of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting financial institutions in
violation of 18

u.s.c.

§ 1349 (Count 1);

(2) eight counts of wire

2

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 19.
For purposes of
identification, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted
on each docket entry by the court's electronic case filing system,
ECF.
3

Ezenwa identifies ABC Channel 13 Eyewitness News as being
owned by the Walt Disney Group.
(See Complaint, Docket Entry
No. 1, p. 19.) To the extent that the Complaint can be construed
as Ezenwa naming the Walt Disney Group as a separate defendant,
Ezenwa does not make any factual allegations against the Walt
Disney Group in the Complaint.
-2-

fraud affecting financial institutions in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§

1343

(Counts 2-9);

(3)

one count of conspiracy to commit mail

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
counts

of mail

(Counts 11-15) . 4

§

1349

(Count 10); and (4)

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§

1341,

five
1342

Following a bench trial, Judge Charles Eskridge

found Ezenwa guilty of all 15 counts as charged in the superseding
indictment. 5

Ezenwa was sentenced to 78 months as to each of the

. 15 counts, to be served concurrently. 6
Ezenwa's

convictions

on

\1

April

The fifth Circuit affirmed
2023. 7

24,

Subsequently,

district court denied Ezenwa's attempt to vacate,

set aside,

the
or

correct his sentence on post-conviction collateral review. 8
Although the Complaint is difficult to parse, it appears that
Ezenwa

asserts

claims

against

the

United States

for

wrongful

prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, and false arrest in relation
to

his

criminal

"prejudiced

by

proceeding. 9
the

report

Ezenwa
of

also

Sheryl

claims

Fryer"

that
who

he

was

allegedly

"releas[ed] a false news report" that caused him to lose his trial,
4

See United States v. Maxwell Chibueze Ezenwa, Case No. 4:20cr-267-1, Superseding Indictment, Docket Entry No. 38, pp. 34, 5-7
(S.D. Tex., Houston Div.).
5

See id., Minute Entry Order, Docket Entry No. 102, p. 1.

6

Id., Minute Entry for Feb. 24, 2022, Sentencing hearing.

7

Id., Court of Appeals Opinion, Docket Entry No. 168.

8

Id., Opinion and Order Denying Relief, Docket Entry No. 184,

9

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1, 2, 9.

p. 1.

-3-

his business, and his 4O1K retirement accounts. 10

He alleges that

Fryer's false news report led to his "false imprisonment by the
task force[.]" 11

He also asserts several state-law tort claims,

including claims

for malicious

prosecution,

defamation,

libel,

slander, trespass, malicious interference with business employment;
and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 12

He seeks $90

million as compensation. 13
II.

Standard of Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act

( "PLRA")

requires

federal

district courts to screen prisoner complaints to identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails

to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1596
provisions

found

in

the

PLRA,

including

(1998)

the

See

(summarizing

requirement

that

district courts screen prisoners' complaints and summarily dismiss
frivolous,
Tollefson,

malicious,
135

S.

or meritless actions);

Ct.

1759,

1761-62

(2015)

see also Coleman v.
(discussing

the

screening provision found in the federal in forma pauperis statute,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2), and reforms enacted by the PLRA that were
"'designed to filter out the bad claims
lOid. at 8.
11

Id. at 9.

l2Id. at 2, 4, 7.
l3Id. at 15-16.
-4-

[filed by prisoners]

and

facilitate consideration of the good'")
S. Ct. 910, 914 (2007))
A complaint is

(alteration in original).

frivolous

either in law or in fact.'"
1 733

( 1992)

(1989)).

(quoting Jones v. Bock, 127

if it

"' lacks an arguable basis

Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728,

( quot:;ing Neitzke v. Williams,

109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831

"A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,

such as if the

complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly
does not exist."

Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718

1999)

quotation

(internal

marks

and

citations

(5th Cir.

omitted).

"A

complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the
plaintiff

the

opportunity

necessary,

the facts

to

present

additional

alleged are clearly baseless."

Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998)

facts

when

Talib v.

(citation omitted).

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, the factual
allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level [.]"
Twombly, 127 S .' Ct. 1955, 1965 ( 2 0 07)

Bell Atlantic Corp .. v.

( citation omitted) .

If the

complaint has not set forth "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face," it must be dismissed.
at 1974.

Id.

A reviewing court must "'accept all well-pleaded facts as

true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.'"
2020)

Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir.

(citation omitted) .

But it need not accept as true any

"conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal
-5-

conclusions."

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted);

see also White v. U.S. Corrections, L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 307 (5th
Cir. 2 021)
elements

( same)
of

a

In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the

cause

of

action,

statements, do not suffice."
1949 (2009)

supported

by

mere

conclusory

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

(citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965).

In conducting

this

review the

court

plaintiff represents himself in this case.

is

mindful

that

the

Courts are required to

give a prose litigant's contentions a liberal construction.
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)

See

(per curiam); see

also Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972)

(per curiam)

(noting that allegations in a prose complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers)

Even under this lenient standard,

pro se

litigants are still required to "properly plead sufficient facts
that,

when

relief[.]"
2014)

liberally

construed,

state

a

plausible

claim

to

E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir.

(quoting Champion v. United States,

421 F. App'x 418,

423

(5th Cir. 2011); Pickett v. Nunn, 367 F. App'x 536, 537 (5th Cir.
2010)) .
III.
A.

Discussion

Claims Against the United States

Ezenwa seeks monetary damages

from the

United States

for

alleged improprieties that resulted in his arrest, conviction, and
-6-

imprisonment.
damages

It is well established, however,

for

an

allegedly

imprisonment,

or

for

"unconstitutional

other

unlawfulness would render a

that to recover

harm

caused

conviction

by

actions

or

whose

convictio:r:i or sentence invalid,"

a

civil-rights plaintiff must prove "that the conviction or sentence
has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared

invalid by a

determination,

or

state

called

tribunal

into

question

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus."
2364, 2372 (1994).

authorized
by

a

to make

federal

such

court's

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.

A claim for damages that bears a relationship

to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Id.

Therefore, if a judgment

in favor of the plaintiff would "necessarily imply the invalidity
of

his

conviction

or

sentence,"

then

the

complaint

must

be

dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction
or sentence has already been invalidated.

Id.

The court construes Ezenwa's claims against the United States
to be brought under Bivens, which allows a victim who has suffered
a constitutional violation by a federal actor to recover damages in
federal

court .

See Bivens,

91 S.

Ct.

at 2004-05.

The Fifth

Circuit has held that Heck applies to-claims such as those lodged
by Ezenwa brought under Bivens,
validity of his conviction.
(5th Cir. 1994)

which necessarily implicate the

See Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27

(holding that Heck applies to Bivens actions just

-7-

as it does§ 1983 actions); see also Danmola v. United States, 736
F. App'x 514, 514-15

(5th Cir. 2018)

(per curiam)

Lopez v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Director,
(5th Cir. 2020)

(same).

(same); Ortiz-

830 F. App'x 127, 133

Ezenwa does not allege or show that his

convictions or sentences have been vacated or set aside.

In fact,

court records confirm that Ezenwa's challenges to his convictions
and sentences have all been unsuccessful.

See United States v.

Maxwell Chibueze Ezenwa, Case No. 4:20-cr-267-1 (S.D. Tex., Houston
Div.).

Ezenwa's claims are therefore barred by Heck.

claims are not cognizable at this
dismissed with prejudice.
424

(5th Cir.

1996)

time,

Because his

the Complaint must be

See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423,

(explaining that claims barred by Heck are

"dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until the
Heck conditions are met").
B.

Claims Against Fryer

To the extent that Ezenwa alleges that Fryer has violated his
constitutional rights, such claims must be dismissed.
claim under

[42 U.S. C.]

§

1983,

a plaintiff must

"To state a
[1]

allege a

violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and [2] must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law."
Oliver, 995 F.3d 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2021)
and citation omitted).

Sanchez v.

(internal quotation marks

The alleged violation "must be caused by

-8-

the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by
a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the
State is

responsible."

Lugar v.

S. Ct. 2744, 2753 (1982)

Edmondson Oil Co.

1

Inc. ,

102

This means that "the party charged with

the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a
state actor," that is, one who is in fact a state official, one who
"has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state
officials," or one whose "conduct is otherwise chargeable to the
State."

Id. at 2746.

Ezenwa cannot sue Fryer under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 because he

cannot show that Fryer, who is a local news anchorwoman, qualifies
as

a

state

Mississippi,

See

actor.

597 F.3d 678,

Bryant
686

v.

Military

(5th Cir.

2010)

Department

of

("A person acts

'under color of state law' if he engages in the' [m]isuse of power,
possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the
wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'")
omitted) .

Accordingly,

any

claims

against

Fryer

(citations
purportedly

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Any state-law claims Ezenwa purports to bring against Fryer
must also be

dismissed.

A federal district court has supplemental

jurisdiction over state-law claims

that are

so related to the

federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
28 U.S.C.

§

1367 (a).

A district court may decline to exercise
-9-

supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing
the federal claims.

See St.

Germain v.

Howard,

556 F. 3d 261,

263-64 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United Mine Workers of America v.
Gibbs,

89 S. Ct. 1130, 1139 (1966)

("Needless decisions of state

law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote
justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer~footed
reading of applicable law.").

Generally, when all federal claims

have been dismissed at an early stage,

a district court should

dismiss any pendent state-law claims without prejudice.
Parkwood Hospital, 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999)

Bass v.

("When a court

dismisses all federal claims before trial, the general rule is to
dismiss any pendent claims.")

(citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d

200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Ezenwa's federal claims will be dismissed.

Because the court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law
claims

against

Fryer,

any

state

law claims

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
IV.

§

will

be

dismissed

1367(c) (3)

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Ezenwa's

the United States are
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.
DISMISSED

2.

claims

against

with

prejudice

Ezenwa's state-law claims against defendant Sheryl
Fryer are DISMISSED without prejudice.
To the
extent Ezenwa attempts to bring federal claims
-10-

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Fryer, such claims
are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the parties.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 10th day of May, 2024.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-11-