United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
M. AFRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Linia Burl (“Burl”) filed this
lawsuit seeking damages as well as a permanent injunction,
permanent restraining order, and permanent stay of the
sheriff's foreclosure sale of her home. Named as one of
several defendants is Timothy Kirkpatrick
(“Kirkpatrick”), who previously represented Burl
in bankruptcy proceedings. Because Burl's complaint contains
no facts supporting any allegations of wrongful conduct by
Kirkpatrick, the Court grants Kirkpatrick's uncontested
motion to dismiss.
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a
district court to dismiss a complaint, or any part of it when
a plaintiff has not set forth well-pleaded factual
allegations that would entitle him to relief. See Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.
2007). A plaintiff's factual allegations must
“raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In other
words, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)).
facially plausible claim is one where “the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. If the well-pleaded factual allegations
“do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, ” then “the complaint
has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-‘that
the pleader is entitled to relief.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)) (alteration in original).
assessing the complaint, the Court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and liberally
construe all such allegations in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774; Lowrey
v. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir.
1997). Where “the complaint ‘on its face show[s]
a bar to relief, '” then dismissal is the
appropriate course. Cutrer v. McMillan, 308 Fed.
App'x. 819, 820 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Clark v.
Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d 967, 970 (5th Cir. 1986)).
document filed pro se is 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.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.”). Accordingly, the Court “hold[s]
pro se plaintiffs to a more lenient standard than
lawyers when analyzing complaints.” Chhim v. Univ.
of Texas at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016).
Nevertheless, “pro se plaintiffs must still
plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief
above the speculative level.” Id. “Even
a pro se complaint must contain specific facts
supporting its conclusions.” Jacquez v.
Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986).
argues that Burl has failed to plead any allegations that
state a viable claim against him. The Court agrees.
Kirkpatrick is mentioned twice in Burl's voluminous
amended complaint. Specifically, the amended complaint
OTHER FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS: BERKELEY LAW RECEIPTS AND
PROOFS OF PAYMENTS, SEE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR PARISH OF
ORLEANS EXHIBIT LIST, HANDWRITTEN PAPER DATED 8/11/2017 AND
EXHIBITS VIOLATION ADCOCK'S OFFICE, EMBRACE HOME LOANS
AND ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, VOLKS ANWALT
AND ATTORNEY TIMOTHY KIRKPATRICK.
TAXPAYER'S BILL OF RIGHTS #3 THE RIGHT TO PAY NO MORE
THAN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAX. VIOLATION ATTORNEY HERSCHEL
ADCOCK'S OFFICE, EMBRACE HOME LOANS, ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING CORPORATION, ATTORNEY ...