Williams v. Am. Commercial Lines
| Decision Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-139-SDD-EWD |
| Parties | ROBERT H. WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN COMMERICAL LINES, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
As Robert H. Williams (“Plaintiff”) has still failed to adequately allege the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, it is recommended that his suit be dismissed with prejudice on the Court's own motion, or alternatively, that the Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or Comply with Rule 8, filed by certain defendants, [1] which are unopposed and appear to have merit, be granted. It is further recommended that, if sought Plaintiff should not be given further leave to amend as he has already had one opportunity to do so and the record shows that any further amendments would be futile.
This suit involves claims by Plaintiff against fifteen entities and two individuals for alleged racketeering activities.[2] There are citations to various statutes throughout the Amended Complaint, including allegations of violations of Title 18, United States Code §§1962 (a-c) (prohibited activities under Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”);[3] 1503(a) (obstruction of justice by influencing or injuring officer or juror);[4] 1513(e) ();[5] 1001 (making false statements or entries in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government);[6] 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before a department or agency of the United States);[7] 1343 (wire fraud);[8] 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim or informant in an official proceeding).[9] Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy that “threatened” and injured Plaintiff's personal and business interests and reputation.[10] While the exact nature of Plaintiff's claims is not clear from the recitations in the Amended Complaint, Exhibit 7 to the Amended Complaint is a Lease Agreement, that states it was entered into on April 1, 2016, between ACBL Transportation Services LLC, as lessee, and many other individuals, including Plaintiff, who is listed as a 1/225ths owner and lessor of property bordering the Mississippi River.[11] Plaintiff asks, in part, that this Court declare the Lease Agreement to be “bogus, fraudulent, illicit, illegal and void ab initio.” Plaintiff does not explain how the Lease Agreement is void (or voidable), other than to say it is “obviously, on its face, clearly incomplete and void and fraudulent, as a matter of law ….”[12]
On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants, asserting claims identical to those discussed above.[13] Some Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and others filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).[14] On February 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a combined 4-page, single paragraph “response” to the motions and a “First Supplemental Amendment” to the original Complaint.[15] About two months later, Plaintiff filed his “Second Supplemental Amended Complaint and Also Amended List of Defendants and Also Second Responses and Answers to California and Louisiana Defendants and Also First Responses and Answers to Indiana Defendants.”[16]
On July 23, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“July 2020 Report”), recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice on the Court's own motion, or, alternatively, that the original motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement, filed by certain Defendants, be granted.[17] The basis for the dismissal recommendation was that Plaintiff had not established the Court's subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity or federal question. Specifically, the Report explained why the citizenship allegations as to all the corporate and limited liability company defendants were deficient and what information was necessary to correct those deficiencies. It also explained that vague references that Defendants engaged in conduct that amounts to a RICO violation, generic statements that this conduct caused him harm, and a mere recitation of the elements of a RICO violation are not sufficient to state a claim. Further, Plaintiff was advised that he must state specific facts to support the elements of a RICO violation and to explain how Defendants' conduct caused his injuries.[18]Nonetheless, because it was “not possible to tell…if Plaintiff could adequately allege a RICO claim, ” it was recommended that Plaintiff be given an “opportunity to amend his Complaint to state that claim, if possible.”
Plaintiff objected to the Report by filing his “Objections and Motion and Re-Pleading and Supplemental Complaint.”[19] Plaintiff's objection did not address any of the issues or deficiencies raised in the Report. Instead, it was filled with the same type of conclusory statements and allegations contained in the Complaint (and Plaintiff's other filings). After considering Plaintiff's objection and the entire record, the Court adopted the Report and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.[20] Based on the adoption of the Report, Plaintiff was ordered to file a comprehensive amended complaint that “cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Report.”[21]
Plaintiff timely filed the Amended Complaint.[22] In response, the Defendants reurged their Motions to Dismiss.[23]
[24]
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has again failed to establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity jurisdiction or federal question. As to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff adequately pleads that he is a citizen of Texas[25] and that the individual defendants, Gordon S. LeBlanc, Jr. and Hermann Moyse, III, are citizens of Louisiana.[26] For the corporate defendants, Plaintiff does not adequately allege principal places of business and places of incorporation as to each corporate defendant, [27] nor does he adequately identify, and allege the citizenship of, each member of each limited liability company defendant.[28] Despite being on notice of the requirements to adequately plead the citizenship of the corporate and limited liability company defendants, Plaintiff made nearly no effort to address these deficiencies, and what little effort was made was nonresponsive to the Report. For example, in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that all “LLC and/or Corporate Defendants are headquartered in either…Indiana or California.”[29]Assuming arguendo that this satisfies Plaintiff's obligation to state that principal places of business for the corporate defendants, Plaintiff still does not allege the state of incorporation for any corporate defendant. More problematic is Plaintiff's wholesale failure to identify, or provide the citizenship of, the limited liability company defendants' respective members as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c).
As to federal question, Plaintiff alleges violations of federal criminal statutes and violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. A plaintiff does not generally have a private cause of action under a federal criminal statute.[30] To the extent Plaintiff believes Defendants have committed federal crimes within the Middle District of Louisiana, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana is the chief federal law enforcement officer for the district and is responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws. Conversely, there is a private cause of action for a violation of RICO[31] and an adequately stated RICO claim can establish federal question jurisdiction.[32] Here, however, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a RICO claim.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 provides a civil cause of action for “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of” RICO's substantive provisions. § 1962 enumerates substantive violations. To recover under § 1964(c), a plaintiff must prove not only all elements of a substantive RICO violation but also that “he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation, ” and “must also demonstrate that the substantive violation proximately caused his injury.”[33] “A plaintiff must allege specific facts concerning (1) the conduct (2...
To continue reading
Request your trial