Williams v. Am. Commerical Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 July 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-139-SDD-EWD
• Parties: ROBERT H. WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN COMMERICAL LINES, INC., ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

ROBERT H. WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN COMMERICAL LINES, INC., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-139-SDD-EWD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

July 23, 2020

NOTICE

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.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 23, 2020.

/s/_________

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

As the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case, it is recommended that the Complaint in this matter, filed by Robert H. Williams ("Plaintiff"), who is representing himself, be dismissed without prejudice on the Court's own motion, or, alternatively, that the Motions to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement, filed by certain defendants,¹ be granted. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be given leave to amend.

I. Plaintiff's Claims

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 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) (obstruction of justice by retaliating against a witness, victim or an informant);⁵ 1001 (making false statements or entries in a matter within thejurisdiction of the federal government); 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before a department or agency of the United States); 1343 (wire fraud); 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim or informant in an official proceeding).⁶ Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy that "threatened" and injured Plaintiff's personal and business interests and reputation.⁷ While it is not clear from the recitations in the Complaint (or the documents attached thereto) the exact nature of Plaintiff's claims, Exhibit 7 to the 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.⁸ 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, obviously incomplete and void and fraudulent, as a matter of law ...."⁹

II. Law and Analysis

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute ... which is not to be expanded by judicial decree .... It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction ... and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction."¹⁰

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not established 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 Texas¹¹ and that the individual defendants, Gordon S. LeBlanc, Jr. and Hermann Moyse, III, are citizens of Louisiana.¹² For the corporate defendants, Plaintiff does not adequately allege principal place of business and place of incorporation as to each corporation defendant,¹³ nor does he adequately identify, and allege the citizenship of, each member of the limited liability company defendants.¹⁴

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.¹⁵ 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 responsiblefor enforcing federal criminal laws. Conversely, there is a private cause of action for a violation of RICO¹⁶ and an adequately stated RICO claim can establish federal question jurisdiction.¹⁷ 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."¹⁸ "A plaintiff must allege specific facts concerning (1) the conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity."¹⁹ While Plaintiff vaguely references that Defendants engaged in conduct that rises to the level of a substantive RICO violation, and that this conduct caused him injuries, it is not sufficient to simply state the elements of a cause of action.²⁰ Plaintiff has not articulated any specific facts to support the elements of a RICO violation or to explain how Defendants' conduct caused his injuries.²¹

In a case where a plaintiff has utterly failed to allege facts to support a claim that would give rise to federal jurisdiction, this Court is without jurisdiction to decide the case and must dismiss it.²² As currently pled, Plaintiff's claims are obviously without merit. What is not possible to tell is whether Plaintiff could adequately allege a RICO claim. Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to amend his Complaint to state that claim, if possible.²³

Additionally, because the pending Motions to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement²⁴ raise many of the same issues regarding pleading deficiencies addressed in this Report (and other deficiencies),²⁵ granting these motions would be an alternative basis to arrive at the sameconclusion. Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, but Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend his Complaint to state a claim.²⁶

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the Court's own motion, or, alternatively, that the Motions to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement,²⁷ filed by certain defendants, be granted.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be given leave to amend his Complaint to attempt to state a claim.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that any remaining pending motions²⁸ be DENIED without prejudice to reurging, if necessary.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 23, 2020.

/s/_________

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1. See, R. Docs. 12, 18 & 22 (collectively, the "Motions to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement").

2. Named as defendants are the following: American Commercial Lines, Inc.; Platinum Equity, LLC; Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC; Gordon S. LeBlanc, Jr.; Hermann Moyse, III; ACBL Transportation Services, LLC; ACL Transportation Services, LLC; ACL I Corporation; Commercial Barge Line Company; American Commercial Barge Line, LLC; American Commercial Lines International LLC; ACBL OLDCO, LLC; ACBL River Operations LLC; ACL Professional Services Inc.; Commercial Barge Line Holdings, LLC; American Commercial Barge Line Holding Corp.; and American Commercial Barge Line Company (collectively, "Defendants").

3. R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 17, 18 & 21.

4. R. Doc. 1, ¶ 13.

5. R. Doc. 1, ¶ 15.

6. R. Doc. 1, ¶ 16.

7. R. Doc. 1, ¶ 17.

8. R. Doc. 1-2, pp. 8-46. In addition to the Lease, Plaintiff attached several emails to the Complaint purportedly between himself and representatives of some Defendants. Id. at 1-2, pp. 1-7, 47-69. While "[a] written instrument attached to a pleading as an exhibit is part of the pleading for all purposes" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), the attached emails do not appear to be written instruments. "A written instrument within the meaning of Rule 10(c) 'is a document evidencing legal rights or duties giving formal expression to a legal act or agreement, such as a deed, will, bond, lease, insurance policy of security agreement.'" Rivera v. Robinson, No. 18-14005, 2019 WL 13265888, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Mar. 22, 2019) (citations omitted). Thus, the emails attached to Plaintiff's Complaint do not form "part of the pleading" and cannot be used by Plaintiff to provide the "short and plain statement" of his claims showing that he is entitled to the relief he requests, as required by Rule 8. Further, neither the Court nor Defendants should be required to sift through the exhibits, which are vaguely referenced in the Complaint, to "decipher the scope of the allegations under each [of Plaintiff's] claims." See, e.g., U.S. v. Erie County, NY, 724 F. Supp. 2d 357 (W.D.N.Y 2010) (noting that the attachments to plaintiff's complaint made it "unnecessarily difficult for [d]efendants to decipher the scope of the allegations underlying each claim."); U.S. ex. rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that Rule 8(a) is violated where a complaint and its...