Cadena v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 21 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | A-16-CV-1009-RP |
| Parties | JOSEPH CADENA v. JAMES SETH HICKS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Cadena's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1); Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 4); and Cadena's Defining Statement (Dkt. No. 11) filed in Response to the Court's ordering Cadena to file a More Definite Statement. The District Court referred the motions to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a determination on the merits pursuant to a standing order of the Court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Because the Court has already granted Cadena's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court must conduct a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in Cadena's Complaint and is recommending his claims be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Because Cadena has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review his Complaint under §1915(e)(2), which provides in relevant part that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (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 complaint filed IFP may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact," Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995), and the claims "are of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration or trivial." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995).
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The court must "accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Watts v. Graves, 720 F.2d 1416, 1419 (5th Cir. 1983). In deciding whether a complaint states a claim, "[t]he court's task is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success." Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). "A claim has facial plausibility when the [nonmovant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [movant] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. However, the petitioner's pro se status does not offer him "an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Farguson v. Mbank Houston N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
In his Complaint, Cadena asserts that beginning in 2009, he cohabited with Jennifer Degollado in a rental unit located at 9614 Sugar Hill, Austin, Texas, owned by James Seth Hicks, a resident of California. Only Degollado was on the lease. Cadena lived with Degollado as her "livein aide," and was paid to assist her through the Coalition for Texans with Disabilities. Cadena further states that the rent was paid to Hicks by the United States Government pursuant to Section 8.1 The Complaint asserts that Degollado did not sign another lease after the initial lease ended in September of 2010 until she signed an additional one-year lease in December of 2015.
In May of 2010, the Austin Public Housing Authority inspected the property and identified repairs needed to pass inspection. A notice was sent to Hicks identifying the required repairs. Hicks failed to make the repairs and Cadena made the repairs required to pass inspection. Cadena alleges that Hicks and his property manager ignored various calls requesting maintenance on the property, and that the property was not properly maintained.
In May of 2014, Cadena moved out. In May of 2015, the City of Austin Public Housing Authority inspected the property and informed Hicks that he would not be paid under the Section 8 program until Hicks repaired the property. In July of 2015, Hicks repaired the property. On July 7, 2015, the property was sold in a foreclosure sale to Oso Dormido LLC, which Cadena asserts is actually Hicks. Degollado was informed by Hicks that she needed to move out. However, he allowedher to stay in the property raising the rent from $763.00 per month, which was the rate for the previous six years, to $1050.00. The rent was paid to Hicks via Section 8 voucher, with the exception of $81.00 per month paid by Degollado. Cadena asserts that Hicks never disclosed that the property was sold in foreclosure and continued to collect the money from the Section 8 program, despite the sale. Cadena asserts that at this time, Hicks began threatening Degallodo with eviction.
In December of 2015, Degollado and Hicks entered into a year long lease of the property, and Cadena moved back in. The heating and air conditioning unit sustained damage, for which Cadena asserts Hicks wrongfully blamed Degollado. Hicks again threatened to evict Degollado, and in March 2016, Degollado was served with a notice to vacate the property. Despite taking Degollado to court, she was not evicted. Again on May 14, 2016, Degollado was served with an eviction notice, stating her $81.00 portion of the rent was not paid. On May 24, 2016, Degollado was arrested for assaulting Cadena. Cadena obtained a protective order against her and continued to reside at the property.
Cadena alleges that somebody tampered with the mailbox and that Degollado did not receive a "Termination of Housing Voucher" letter postmarked June 27, 2016, until July 3, 2016. The letter set a final hearing date for July 22, 2016.
An eviction suit was filed on July 8, 2016. Cadena attended the July 25, 2016, eviction hearing. The judge entered a default judgment against Degollado and evicted Degollado and Cadena Cadena appealed the eviction, and during that period alleges he was threatened if he did not leave the property.
Cadena alleges that Hicks and Oso Dormido LLC acted to illegally evict Degollado and Cadena in order to sell a property they allege was "acquired through fraud and misrepresentation."He alleges negligence and damages for mental anguish. Cadena complains that Hicks failed to make repairs required to meet the City of Austin Public Housing Authority's standards, requiring Cadena and Degollado to incur expenses and to make the repairs in order to pass inspection. Additionally, Cadena asserts that the Housing Authority of the City of Austin violated Degollado's rights by failing to inform her of her rights as a tenant, failing to assist her with filling out complaint forms to the proper federal agencies and generally failing to advocate for her. Cadena asserts that the City of Austin Public Housing Authority failed to enforce the requirements and guidelines established by HUD, and failed to follow its own rules when it allowed Section 8 payments by the federal government on a property without a lease.
Cadena and Degallado seek a Temporary Restraining Order requesting the Court to restrain threats to kill and harm them communicated through text and phone messages. Additionally, Cadena is seeking monetary relief for negligence, fraud, lost wages, disability, and future income in the amount of $1,000,000.00 Degallado seeks the same relief, along with an award of the property located at 9612 Sugar Hill Dr. located in Austin, Texas. Cadena and Degollado also request the Court to arrest Hicks and find him guilty along with any other co-defendants.
In his "Defining Statement" Cadena asserts federal criminal causes of action for fraud against Hicks stating that "I believe that Degollado and I are victims of white collar crime." (Dkt. No. 11 at 5). Lastly, Cadena alleges that the Austin Public Housing Authority violated his and Degollado's right to due process by not assisting in filing complaints, retaliation, not enforcing tenant rights, and failing to allow Cadena to represent Degollado. Cadena asserts that he has standing to bring his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613. Id. at 12.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There are two basic types of jurisdiction: diversity and federal question. Diversity jurisdiction requires (1) that "the matter in controversy exceed[ ] the sum or value of $75,000" (i.e., the amount of money the plaintiff is seeking) and (2) that the case be between, among other things, "citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. § 1332. By contrast, federal question jurisdiction requires that the case arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
If the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case. Moreover, "the court has an affirmative duty to raise [ ] issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, whenever a problem with subject matter jurisdiction is perceived." Dominguez-Cota v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 39 F.3d 650, 652 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005)); Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandergiff, 759 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2014) rev'd on other grounds, 135 S. Ct. 2236 (2015) (). A pro se...
To continue reading
Request your trial