Anderson v. Property Standards

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

JERMAINE ANDERSON CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-cv-205

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

DEPT OF PROPERTY STANDARDS ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Jermaine Anderson (“Plaintiff”), who is self-represented, has filed ten civil actions

in this court since October 2024.1 Most were filed under the name Jermaine Anderson, but

one was filed as Jermaine Anderson Joseph. Some are directed at persons associated with

eviction proceedings in the Shreveport City Court and Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with his

housing situation. With some, like this one, it is impossible to tell what the claims are

about. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that this civil action be dismissed

for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and that sanctions be imposed

on Plaintiff to prevent the filing of more frivolous suits.

This complaint names as its defendants the City of Shreveport, the Department of

Property Standards, City Attorney Marcus Edwards, former United States Attorney

Brandon Brown, and Shreveport Water Company. Plaintiff checked a box on the form

complaint to indicate that the basis for federal jurisdiction is federal question. The form

1 The other nine civil actions are 24-cv-1514, Anderson v. Smith; 24-cv-1520, Anderson v.

Woodreal Estates 506, LLC; 24-cv-1662; Anderson v. Johnson; 24-cv-1719, Anderson v.

Woodreal Estates 506, LLC; 24-cv-1737, Anderson v. Villacenio; 24-cv-1738, Anderson v.

Woodreal Estates 506, LLC; 24-cv-1783, Joseph v. Marie; 25-cv-0005, Anderson v. Whiteside;

and 25-cv-0203, Anderson v. Brooks.

asked him to list the federal statutes at issue, and he wrote “Discrimination denied housing

Race/civil liberties provision violations. Violations of Civil Rights / under the color of

law.”

The form also directed Plaintiff to (1) write a short and plain statement of his claim

by stating facts that show that he is entitled to relief and (2) state how each defendant was

involved and what each defendant did that caused harm to the Plaintiff or violated his

rights. Plaintiff wrote only: “The Plaintiff is entitled to relief due to the Defendants, harm,

mental stress, etc. … Time 3:00 pm, Dates: (Jan) 14, 2025, - Feb, 11, 2025, 9:00 pm.

Asking that monetary relief be granted, to the Plaintiff, due, to the Defendants harm, and

damage.” He asked that the court award punitive damages and exemplary damages in the

amount of $75,000.

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff’s complaint must plead

enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). The

factual allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 127

S.Ct. at 1965. “[P]ro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted

by lawyers,” but even in a pro se complaint “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions

masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to” state a valid claim. Taylor v.

Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff was directed in clear language to state facts to support his claims, and he

completely failed to do so. There is nothing in the meager offerings in his complaint that

asserts a plausible claim against the named defendant. There is not even a hint as to how

any named defendant interacted with Plaintiff in any way.

Plaintiff asserts that the defendants violated his civil rights, but mere conclusory

allegations, naked assertions without any factual enhancement, or formulaic recitations of

a cause of action are not enough to survive review under the Twombly standard. Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Twombly “demands more than an unadorned, the-

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff was advised of

these requirements in prior Reports and Recommendations where his complaints were

found lacking. His conclusory allegations in this complaint are not sufficient to state a

plausible claim on which relief may be granted, so the complaint should be dismissed.

The recommended dismissal may be granted sua sponte. “A district court may

dismiss an action on its own motion under Rule 12(b)(6) as long as the procedure employed

is fair.” Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). This procedure is fair,

because this Report and Recommendation provides Plaintiff with sufficient notice of and

opportunity to respond to the possible dismissal of his case. See Magouirk v. Phillips, 144

F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998) (sua sponte invocation of defense in Report and

Recommendation satisfied due process). Such a sua sponte dismissal is permissible even

if done prior to a defendant being served. Alexander v. Trump, 753 Fed. Appx. 201, 208

(5th Cir. 2018).

The complaint does not set forth an actionable claim against any defendant that

states a claim on which relief may be granted, so the complaint should be dismissed

Plaintiff has now filed multiple meritless lawsuits. Each of his complaints require the

expenditure of judicial resources that could otherwise be spent on the resolution of the

cases of deserving litigants. To prevent such abuses, the court has the authority to structure

sanctions as are necessary or warranted to control its docket and maintain the orderly

administration of justice. See Goldgar v. Office of Administration, 26 F.3d 32, 36 n.3 (5th

Cir. 1994); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993); Moody v. Miller, 864 F.2d

1178, 1179 n.2 (5th Cir. 1989).

In several prior actions, including 24-cv-1737 and 24-cv-1783, the undersigned

issued this warning:

Plaintiff’s filings that have been reviewed by the court thus far have been

meritless and frivolous. He is warned that if he continues to file such

frivolous actions and pleadings, he may be subjected to sanctions, which can

include an order that he pay monetary sanctions, a bar on filing as a pauper,

and a bar on filing any civil action without prior approval by a district judge.

Plaintiff should take this warning seriously.

A part of the court’s responsibility is to see that its resources are allocated in a way that

promotes the interests of justice. Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals, 113 S.Ct.

397, 398 (1992). Allowing Plaintiff to continue to consume the court’s resources with

frivolous filings delays justice for other citizens who have business before the court and

does not promote the interests of justice.

Plaintiff has been given repeated opportunities to file a meritorious complaint, he

has failed on every occasion, and he has been warned that continuing to file frivolous

complaints could lead to sanctions. It is now time to impose those sanctions and end

Plaintiff’s abuse of the litigation process. The circumstances warrant an order that the

Clerk of Court not file any civil complaint submitted by Plaintiff unless the complaint has

been presented first to a district judge of this court and the judge has specifically authorized

in writing that the complaint may be filed. Any motion to proceed in forma pauperis that

accompanies such a complaint should also be directed to a district judge for action. Those

measures will protect the resources of the judiciary and the public without unduly

burdening Plaintiff’s ability to access the courts if he ever has a good faith complaint. A

similar recommendation has been made in Anderson v. Brooks, 25-cv-00203, a case that

is assigned to Judge Edwards. Plaintiff filed that meritless complaint the day before he

filed this one.

Accordingly,

It is recommended that this civil action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

state a claim on which relief may be granted.

It is further recommended that the Clerk of Court be ordered to decline to file any

civil complaint submitted by Jermaine Anderson a/k/a Jermaine Anderson Joseph unless

the complaint has been presented first to a district judge of this court and the judge has

specifically authorized in writing that the complaint may be filed. It is also recommended

that any motion to proceed in forma pauperis that accompanies such a complaint be referred

to a district judge for action.

Objections

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties

aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this report and

recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an

extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another

party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.

Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the

District Judge at the time of filing.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation set forth above, within 14 days after being served with a copy, shall bar

that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See

Douglass v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 25th day of February,

2025.

=|

Mark L. Hornsby

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 6 of 6