Blackland Community Development Corporation v. Jackson

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS re 1 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Patricia Jackson, GRANTNG 1 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Patricia Jackson.. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
BLACKLAND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
V.
PATRICIA JACKSON

§
§
§
§
§

A-14-CV-888 SS

ORDER ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS
TO:

THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Magistrate Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of
Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Before the Court is: Defendant Patricia Jackson’s (“Jackson”) Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Dkt. # 1). Because Jackson is requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis,
this Court must review and make a recommendation on the merits of her claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court has reviewed Jackson’s petition and has determined she is indigent and should be
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Jackson’s
request for in forma pauperis status. The Clerk of the Court shall file Jackson’s complaint without
payment of fees or costs or giving security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent
status is granted subject to a later determination the action should be dismissed if the allegation of
poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Jackson is further advised that, although she has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
a Court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other
cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
As stated below, this Court has made a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in this complaint
and is recommending Jackson’s claims be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, service
upon Plaintiff Blackland Community Development Corp. should be withheld pending the
District Court’s review of the recommendations made in this report. If the District Court declines
to adopt the recommendations, then service should be issued at that time upon Plaintiff.
II. REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS
A.

General Background
Jackson seeks to proceed in forma pauperis not to file a new claim, but so that she may

remove an existing state court action to this Court. Jackson seeks to remove Cause No. J1-CV-14071987 in the Justice Court of Precinct 1, Travis County, Texas, on the grounds that her civil rights
were violated when she was evicted from her home. Jackson states in her notice of removal that the
state court has already entered a judgment in that case, in favor of her landlord, Blackland
Community Development Corp. (“Blackland”). Jackson would also like to remove her pending
appeal of an earlier eviction suit, also brought by Blackland, Cause No. C-1-14-00774 in the Travis
County Civil Court at Law No. 2.
B.

Standard of Review
A district court “shall dismiss” a case brought in forma pauperis at any time if the court

determines the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “A district court may dismiss under § 1915 for failure to state a claim if it is
2

‘patently obvious’ that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an
opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1224
(10th Cir. 2006). “A complaint filed IFP may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or in fact.” Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995).
C.

Discussion
Jackson appears to be attempting to win for herself in federal court what she could not

achieve in state court. Rather than pursuing appeals of her eviction in state court, she has attempted
to have these already-decided cases removed to federal court. But unlike state courts, federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction, which can hear cases only where empowered to do so by the
Constitution or by act of Congress. 13 WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PRACTICE § 3522.
Jackson’s complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is well settled that, as
a jurisdictional matter, “litigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints
about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights suits.” Hale v. Harney, 786
F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that “federal district courts,
as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders
of state courts.” Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2000). The doctrine applies to
“cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of
those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). Jackson’s
action should be dismissed under Rooker-Feldman, as an improper collateral attack on a state court
order.

3

Moreover, under federal statute, a civil action brought in state court can be removed by a
defendant to federal district court only where the federal court would have had jurisdiction of the
action had it been brought originally in the federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. By all indications,
Jackson’s state court cases are garden variety landlord-tenant disputes. “Landlord-tenant disputes
and eviction actions are typically state law claims.” Ortiz v. Hillard, 2010 WL 2195652 (S.D. Tex.
June 1, 2010). “It is well established that the landlord-tenant relationship is fundamentally a matter
of state law and . . . federal courts appropriately abstain from adjudicating those actions as they
involve complex questions of state law.” Id. (citing United Mut. Houses, L.P. v. Andujar, 230
F.Supp.2d 349, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). As such, there does not appear to be a federal question here,
leaving this Court without subject matter jurisdiction over Jackson’s cases.
The Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction, as all parties are residents of Texas. Because this
court would not have had jurisdiction of the state action had it been brought originally in federal
court, it is “patently obvious” that it may not be removed under § 1441. Accordingly, the Court will
recommend that this case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS Defendant’s cause
of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and FURTHER RECOMMENDS that the District
Court DENY all other pending motions and requests for relief.
IV. WARNING
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
4

being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466,
472-74 (1985); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en
banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report &
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 29th day of September, 2014.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5