Robinson v. Waco Habitat for Humanity, et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations, 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Brand Shuttlesworth, 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Tracie Littrell, 10 Mo tion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Lori Young, 9 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Jose Mullet, 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Waco Habitat for Humanity. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (tb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, et al.,
Before the Court are five motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, filed by Defendant Waco
Habitat for Humanity, (Dkt. 6), Defendant Brand Shuttlesworth, (Dkt. 7), Defendant Tracie Littrell,
(Dkt. 8), Defendant Jose Mullet, (Dkt. 9), and Defendant Lori Young, (Dkt. 10). These motions
were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske for a Report and
Recommendation on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Rules 1(h) and 4(b) of
Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On May 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Manske filed a Report and Recommendation in the matter,
recommending that this Court grant each Defendant’s motion.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and thereby secure a de novo review by the
district court. Plaintiff failed to timely file any objections to the findings of fact or conclusions of law
of the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 12). The Court was informed, however, that Plaintiff visited the
District Court Clerk’s office on June 6, 2017, and told one of the clerks that while he wished to file
an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, he is physically unable to
because he cannot move his arms due to his severe muscular dystrophy. Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in this court without prepaying fees also demonstrates that he is unlikely to be able to
afford the assistance of an attorney who might be able to draft an objection for him.
To ensure that Plaintiff’s rights are not compromised because of his disability and his
inability to write an objection, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of this case and the
Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Manske. After this review, the Court fully
agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate. (Mot. to Proceed IFP, Dkt. 2).
As the Report and Recommendation explained, this Court must have subject-matter
jurisdiction over any claims it hears. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (“The district courts of the United States . . . are ‘courts of
limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”). There
are two primary ways to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts. First, a plaintiff may invoke the
court’s diversity jurisdiction in instances where the plaintiff is citizen of a different state than each of
the defendants in the action and the plaintiff’s claim is for more than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332;
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530 (1967). Here, Plaintiff’s Civil Cover Sheet
indicates that both he and the Waco Habitat for Humanity are citizens of the same county—
McLennan County, Texas. (Pl’s. Civil Cover Sheet, Dkt. 1-2). Because both Plaintiff and at least one
Defendant are citizens of McLennan County, Texas, there is not complete diversity, and the Court
does not have jurisdiction on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Second, a plaintiff may invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction where he or she
states a claim under the United States Constitution or other federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here,
Plaintiff’s complaint names no specific claims, but, construing it liberally, Plaintiff appears to be
attempting to state claims for negligence, gross negligence, fraud, or breach of contract. Each of
these claims, and other related claims, are based in state law, and not the Constitution or a federal
Notably, Plaintiff suggests on his Civil Cover Sheet that he is making a civil rights claim for
housing or accommodations by checking that box to describe the “Nature of the Suit.” (Pl’s. Civil
Cover Sheet, Dkt. 1-2). Liberally construing the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, however, the
Court can identify no such claim. For example, the Fair Housing Act (“the FHA”) prohibits
discrimination in residential real-estate related transactions. See 42 U.S.C. § 3605. But Plaintiff does
not plausibly allege or even suggest discrimination “because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,
familial status, or national origin” in his complaint or through the documents attached to his
complaint. Instead, Plaintiff appears to be concerned about the quality of certain repairs provided to
him free of charge through Habitat for Humanity a few years ago. In short, Plaintiff’s complaint fails
to meet his burden to demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction over his claims. The Court must
therefore grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
To be clear, the Court’s ruling is limited to addressing its jurisdiction. While the Court does
not wish to suggest that Plaintiff should bring his claims in state court, it does wish to emphasize
that this ruling does not address the merits of his claims whatsoever, nor address whether his claims
might be successful in state court.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 12) is APPROVED AND ACCEPTED for the reasons stated
The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 6–10).
SIGNED on July 25, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?