# Trotter

> District Court, N.D. Texas · January 26, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311037

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph Stanley Trotter, IV v. Steve Streich, Grexco Technology Group LLC, Alex Vantarakis, and Bo Ex Properties LLC
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** January 26, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311037

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of flexibility” and that dismissal of all federal claims generally “weigh in favor” of remand
- affirming dismissal where conspiracy allegations were conclusory and there was no evidence that a prior agreement was made

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOSEPH STANLEY TROTTER, IV, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ No. 3:25-cv-01933-G-BT
STEVE STREICH, GREXCO §
TECHNOLOGY GROUP LLC, ALEX §
VANTARAKIS, and BO EX §
PROPERTIES LLC, §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se civil action
was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including
the entry of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon
review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, the District Judge should
dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Joseph Stanley Trotter IV, proceeding in forma pauperis, brings
this civil action asserting federal civil rights and related claims arising out of a
dispute involving wage withholding for child support, the termination of his
employment, and an eviction or removal from his business suite. See ECF No. 12
at 1-4.1
Construed liberally, Trotter alleges that Defendants—who include a private

employer and its CEO, as well as a private property owner/manager and related
business entities—engaged in a coordinated course of retaliation and unlawful
conduct directed at Trotter. Id. Defendants allegedly acted in response to Trotter’s
protected reporting or whistleblower activity relating to the legality of wage
withholding for child support.

Trotter has repeatedly pursued federal litigation challenging the
withholding or garnishing of his wages for child support arrears, including due
process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotter v. Off. of Atty. Gen. of Texas,
No. 3:25-CV-335-X-BN, 2025 WL 624488, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2025), rec.
adopted, No. 3:25-CV-0335-X-BN, 2025 WL 624021 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025;
Trotter v. Tex. Off. of Att’y Gen., No. 3:23-CV-2484-S-BN, 2024 WL 3798219, at

*5 (N.D. Tex. July 17, 2024), rec. accepted, 2024 WL 3803010 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 12,
2024).
Here, Trotter alleges that he disclosed information and documentation of
the child-support withholding issue to his employer and that, after doing so, his
employer terminated him and opposed his unemployment benefits application

through allegedly false accusations. See ECF No. 12 at 2. Trotter also alleges that

1 Trotter’s operative pleading is styled as his Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants shared information about Trotter’s circumstances and engaged in
retaliatory conduct that included an eviction from his rented business suite. Id.
The gravamen of Trotter’s theory is his belief that wage withholding for child

support arrears was unlawful due to an alleged lack of proper service or jurisdiction
in the child-support proceedings. Id.
Based on these allegations, Trotter asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
retaliation and due process violations, under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)-(3) for civil
conspiracy, under the “Whistleblower Protection Act,” and under various state-law

theories including abuse of process, wrongful eviction, and breach of duty. He
seeks damages and other relief. ECF No. 12 at 1-4.
II.LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Because Trotter proceeds in forma pauperis, the complaint is subject to
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under this provision, the Court must
dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint is
frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous
when it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are “clearly ‘baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does
not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted).

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still allege
sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (pro se pleadings are “to be liberally construed,” and “a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings

must be construed so as to do justice”). But conclusory allegations, unwarranted
deductions of fact, and legal conclusions masquerading as facts are insufficient.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A. Trotter Fails to State any Viable Federal Claim.
Liberally construed, Trotter’s Second Amended Complaint asserts federal
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and deprivation of property without

due process, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)-(3) for civil conspiracy, along with other
theories labeled as “Whistleblower Protection Act” violations. See ECF No. 12 at 1-
4. Trotter’s allegations stem from his contention that garnishing his pay for child
support was unlawful, and that when Trotter made Defendants aware of this,
Defendants retaliated against him through termination of his employment and

eviction. See id. at 2-3.
The complaint relies mostly on conclusory assertions such as “retaliation,”
“procedural manipulation,” and “conspiracy”—rather than factual allegations that,
if accepted as true, plausibly establish liability under the federal statutes invoked.
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. Even affording
Trotter’s allegations the liberal construction due to a pro se litigant, the operative

complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible federal claim for relief.
1. Section 1983 Claims
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts that show (1) he
has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States; and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. See, e.g., Flagg

Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978). Stated another way, § 1983
“provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a
citizen’s ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of
the United States[.]” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994). It “afford[s]
redress for violations of federal statutes, as well as of constitutional norms.” Id.
Trotter sues only private individuals and private entities, including a private

employer and a private property owner/manager. See ECF No. 12. Trotter does not
plead facts showing that any Defendant is a governmental entity, a state official, or
an individual exercising powers traditionally belonging to the State. Nor does
Trotter allege nonconclusory facts that would allow the Court to treat these private
parties as state actors under any recognized theory of state action, such as a public-

function theory, joint-action theory, or governmental entwinement. See Jackson
v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974); see also Yeager v. City of
McGregor, 980 F.2d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, Trotter alleges that
Defendants shared information about his circumstances and engaged in private
business decisions affecting his employment and tenancy. Business relationships
and information sharing among private parties do not convert private conduct into

state action for § 1983 purposes.
Trotter further complains that his child support wage withholding was
unlawful due to a lack of service or jurisdiction in those proceedings and that he
sought court validation of the alleged debt. See ECF No. 12 at 2. Even assuming
Trotter disputes the wage withholding, he still must plead facts showing that these

Defendants committed a constitutional violation actionable under § 1983. Trotter
does not allege that these private Defendants issued a garnishment order, executed
legal process, or had authority over the child support withholding. Instead, he
alleges only that Defendants learned about the garnishment and used the
information as part of their employment and eviction decisions. See ECF No. 12 at
2-3. Those allegations do not plausibly support a due process claim against these

private parties.
Thus, Trotter fails to state a claim under § 1983 because he does not allege
facts showing Defendants acted under color of state law.
2. Section 1985 Claims
To the extent Trotter attempts to invoke a “conspiracy” under § 1985(2)-(3)

to supply state action, he fails to state a plausible claim.
To state a claim under § 1985, a plaintiff must plead facts showing the
existence of a conspiracy—i.e., an agreement between two or more persons to
accomplish an unlawful objective—along with an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy and an injury resulting from that act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2)-(3). Mere
allegations of conspiracy are not enough. See Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022,

1024 (5th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal where conspiracy allegations were
conclusory and there was no evidence that a prior agreement was made). Thus, a
plaintiff must plead specific facts showing a “meeting of the minds,” not labels or
speculation. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (a plaintiff must plead enough facts to
raise a right to relief above speculation).

Trotter’s § 1985 allegations do not meet these standards and fail for multiple
independent reasons. First, Trotter does not plead facts plausibly showing an
agreement among Defendants to violate his federal rights. Trotter alleges that
Defendants had overlapping business relationships, and that one Defendant had
access to information about Trotter’s employment and litigation history, which
Trotter contends was used as part of a retaliatory “scheme.” ECF No. 12 at 2.

However, Trotter does not plead nonconclusory facts showing that Defendants had
an agreement to violate Trotter’s civil rights, when such an agreement was formed,
what its unlawful goal was, or what specific overt acts were taken under that
agreement. Instead, Trotter relies on speculation and labels. Such allegations do
not satisfy federal pleading standards. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557; Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 678.
Second, Trotter fails to allege the elements necessary to state a claim under
§ 1985(3). To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege that the
conspiracy was motivated by “racial, or otherwise class-based, invidiously
discriminatory animus.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Deubert
v. Gulf Fed. Sav. Bank, 820 F.2d 754, 757 (5th Cir. 1987). Trotter does not plausibly

allege that Defendants acted based on Trotter’s membership in any protected class.
Instead, Trotter’s allegations concern a personal dispute arising from wage
withholding, termination of employment, and alleged eviction-related conduct.
Because Trotter does not plead the requisite class-based discriminatory animus,
he fails to state a claim under § 1985(3).

Lastly, although some portions of § 1985(2) do not require allegations of
class-based animus, a plaintiff must still plead facts showing a conspiracy to deter
or retaliate against a party or witness by force, intimidation, or threat in connection
with federal court proceedings. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 727 (1983); see
also Mitchell v. Johnson, No. 07-40996, 2008 WL 3244283, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 8,
2008). Trotter’s allegations do not plausibly show that Defendants conspired to

deter him from testifying, punish him for testifying, or interfere with his access to
federal court proceedings in the manner covered by § 1985(2). See, e.g., Montoya
v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2010). So Trotter
fails to state a claim under § 1985(2).
3. Whistleblower Protection Act

Trotter also proports to assert a “Whistleblower Protection Act” claim. ECF
No. 12 at 3. But the federal Whistleblower Protection Act generally protects certain
federal employees and applicants from retaliation for protected disclosures by
federal agencies. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302, 1221. The Act’s protections extend only to
federal employees, not private-sector employees. See Hastings v. F.A.A., 187 F.3d
938, 940 (8th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988)). Trotter does

not allege that he was employed by the federal government, does not identify a
protected disclosure under the statute, and does not allege any retaliatory
personnel action by a federal agency.
Even construing the complaint to assert a claim under the Texas
Whistleblower Act, Trotter does not allege he was a public employee or that he

made a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement
authority. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002. Because Trotter’s allegations involve a
dispute with private parties arising from wage withholding, termination of private
employment, and an alleged eviction—rather than a federal or government
personnel action—he has not pleaded facts supporting relief. Under these
circumstances, dismissal of Trotter’s federal claims with prejudice is appropriate

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B. The District Judge Should Decline to Exercise Supplemental
Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s State-Law Claims.
Trotter also appears to assert state-law claims, including theories such as
abuse of process and wrongful eviction. See ECF No. 12 at 3-4. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a), a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law
claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s
original jurisdiction. But § 1367(c) expressly provides that a district court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The decision whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing

federal claims is committed to the court’s sound discretion, guided by
consideration of the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir.
2009). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that once federal claims are
dismissed, the general rule, particularly at an early stage of litigation, is to dismiss

or remand any remaining state-law claims. See Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v.
Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted) (“[I]n the
usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance
of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law claims.”); see also Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.
2011) (recognizing that supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of flexibility” and

that dismissal of all federal claims generally “weigh in favor” of remand).
Here, several factors support declining supplemental jurisdiction. First,
Trotter’s federal claims are dismissed at the initial screening stage under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), before any answer, discovery, or substantive litigation on the
merits. This case is in its earliest procedural posture, and no party has invested

resources in litigating the state-law issues in federal court. Further, the remaining
causes of action concern purely matters of Texas law on private employment
disputes and landlord-tenant or eviction-related conduct—issues squarely within
the expertise and province of Texas courts—and principles of comity advise against
federal intrusion into areas traditionally reserved to state tribunals. See, e.g.,
Whiting v. U. of S. Mississippi, 451 F.3d 339, 351 (5th Cir. 2006), abrogated on

other grounds by Sims v. City of Madisonville, 894 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2018).
Retaining jurisdiction would require this Court to develop and apply Texas
law on matters with no remaining federal nexus, effectively converting a federal
forum into a state court. Such an exercise would undermine respect for state
sovereignty and judicial economy by requiring this Court to resolve fact-intensive

questions of state law better addressed by Texas courts intimately familiar with
Texas employment and property law.
In sum, dismissal without prejudice to allow Trotter to refile in state court
imposes no unfair burden. He retains the ability to pursue his state-law theories in
the proper forum, and Defendants will not be prejudiced by litigating state-law
claims in Texas state court, where such claims belong. Because all federal claims

are dismissed and the case remains in its earliest stages, the balance of factors
overwhelmingly favors declining supplemental jurisdiction. The District Judge
therefore should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trotter’s state-
law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.
C. Leave to Amend Would be Futile.

Despite failing to plead sufficient facts, a pro se plaintiff ordinarily should
be granted leave to amend his complaint before dismissal. See Brewster v. Dretke,
587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). Leave to amend is unnecessary, however,
when the plaintiff has already pleaded his best case. See Wiggins v. La. State
Univ.—Health Care Servs. Div., 710 F. App’x 625, 627 (5th Cir. 2017).
Trotter has been afforded multiple opportunities to clarify his claims
through supplemental filings and correspondence with the Court. Despite these
opportunities, Trotter has not alleged facts that would state a plausible
constitutional claim against Defendants. Further leave to amend is not warranted.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi), the District Judge should DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE Trotter’s federal claims for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The District Judge further should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Trotter’s state-law claims and DISMISS those
claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO RECOMMENDED on January 26, 2026.

TRO ()
REBECCA THERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection
must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made,
state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar
the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311037. Public record. Not legal advice.