United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
FREDDIE O. CASTELLO, III
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
following motions are before the Court: Motion to
Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 9) filed by Defendant, the City
of New Orleans; Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Rec. Doc. 13) filed by Plaintiff, Freddie O.
Castello, III. Both motions were noticed for submission on
September 6, 2017, and are before the Court on the briefs
without oral argument.
Freddie O. Castello, III, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed this complaint against the City of New
Orleans and several of the City's departments (Code
Enforcement, Mosquito, Termite & Rodent Control, Building
Safety & Permits, and NCDC - Committee) in relation to
the property located at 2336 Robert Street located in Orleans
Parish. Plaintiff and his parents have lived next door to the
property since 1964. The property had been vacant for years
so Plaintiff elected to mow the lawn, plant trees, paint the
exterior, and file liens against the property-all in hope of
someday owning it. The City of New Orleans had owned the
property when Plaintiff began efforts to obtain title to the
property. But the City of New Orleans, acting through its
appointed officers and employees, would not relinquish title
to the property to Plaintiff.
first lawsuit against City officials pertaining to 2336
Robert Street was Civil Action 12-1854, wherein this Court
issued a judgment against Plaintiff on his claims. The Court
found that Plaintiff's “constitutional”
claims were legally frivolous. (Rec. Doc. 18).
then filed Civil Action 14-2025 against several City
officials, again pertaining to 2336 Robert Street. The Court
dismissed that complaint because Plaintiff lacked
constitutional standing to assert any claims related to the
property. (Rec. Doc. 12).
latest complaint against the City again pertains to 2336
Robert Street. As the Court appreciates the complaint,
Plaintiff is suing the City to obtain ownership of the
property yet again.
instant motion Defendant moves the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant contends that it is
unclear what federal right is actually being alleged as
violated in the complaint.
context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232
(5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007);
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974);
Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437
(5th Cir. 2004)). However, the foregoing tenet is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id.
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550, U.S.
544, 555 (2007)).
central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418
(5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff
must plead sufficient facts to ''state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.'' Id.
(quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). AA 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.''
Id. The Court does not accept as true
''conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual
inferences, or legal conclusions.'' Id.
(quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690,
696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be
supported by factual allegations. Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950).
attempt to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, Plaintiff
characterizes his claims as ''Constitutional
Issues.'' Giving Plaintiff's complaint the
broadest of readings, Plaintiff fails to allege facts
sufficient to support a violation of any federal right,
constitutional or otherwise. The City of New Orleans and its
departments are entitled to judgment as a matter of
and for the foregoing reasons;
IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec.
Doc. 9) filed by Defendant, the City of New Orleans
is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice;
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order (Rec. ...