Chilton v. Texas Southern University

S.D. Texas

Chilton v. Texas Southern University

DecidedSeptember 24, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-01646

StatusUnknown

This text of Chilton v. Texas Southern University (Chilton v. Texas Southern University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chilton v. Texas Southern University, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 24, 202 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION BYRON K. CHILTON, JR., § Plaintiff, : VS. § CIVILACTION NO. 4:24-cv-1646 TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, : Defendant. : § ORDER Pending before this Court is Texas Southern University’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 5). The motion was filed on July 1, 2024, with Byron K. Chilton, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) response due on July 22, 2024. Plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline, and he still has not responded. Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. (Doc. No. 5). This Court’s Local Rules state that “[flailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). As stated above, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion by the July 22, 2024, deadline. Therefore, the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed, Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that “although we have endorsed the adoption of loeal rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson y. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana,

757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (5th Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Sery., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (5th Cir. 1980). In other words, where a party does not respond to a motion to dismiss, such failure does not permit the Court to enter a “default” dismissal. Therefore, the Court will consider the merits of the motion. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapatiah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (2005); People's Nat'l Bank v. Off Of the Comptroller of the Currency of the □□□□□ 362 F.3d 333, 336 (Sth Cir. 2004), Without jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, federal courts lack the power to adjudicate claims. Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 552; Peoples Nat'l Bank, 362 F.3d at 336. A party may challenge a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Feb. R. Crv. P. 12(b)(1). A federal court must consider a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) before any other challenge because a court must have subject matter jurisdiction before determining the validity of a claim. Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169 (Sth Cir. 1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001). Where the motion to dismiss is based on the complaint alone, the court must decide whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (Sth Cir. 1981). Here, Plaintiff’s pre se complaint lays out the following statement of claim: I was given the incorrect grade based on the negative mental narrative the professor displayed at the time of enrollment. The professor was written up and monitored throughout earlier in the semester. At the time of the final grade, I was give[n] the wrong final exam grade. During the appeal period the course was deleted[,] and other grades was [sic] changed. (Doc. No. 1 at 4). He argues that the above conduct gives rise to a federal question because “[i]t’s a UTS 118 Section 8 administration fraud case,” referring to Defendant’s university policy. (/d.).

Pro se litigants are “entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings.” Dunbar v. Pena, 827 F. App’x 419, 420 (Sth Cir. 2020). Even so, it goes without saying that a violation of university policy alone cannot be the hasis for federal-question jurisdiction. Moreover, even if a state university’s policies were the equivalent to state law, a mere allegation of a violation of state law, without more, is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d 472, 478 (Sth Cir. 2012). Therefore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot.

Signed on this the bil of September 2024.

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 24, 202 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION BYRON K. CHILTON, JR., § Plaintiff, : VS. § CIVILACTION NO. 4:24-cv-1646 TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, : Defendant. : § ORDER Pending before this Court is Texas Southern University’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 5). The motion was filed on July 1, 2024, with Byron K. Chilton, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) response due on July 22, 2024. Plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline, and he still has not responded. Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. (Doc. No. 5). This Court’s Local Rules state that “[flailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). As stated above, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion by the July 22, 2024, deadline. Therefore, the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed, Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that “although we have endorsed the adoption of loeal rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson y. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana,

757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (5th Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Sery., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (5th Cir. 1980). In other words, where a party does not respond to a motion to dismiss, such failure does not permit the Court to enter a “default” dismissal. Therefore, the Court will consider the merits of the motion. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapatiah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (2005); People's Nat'l Bank v. Off Of the Comptroller of the Currency of the □□□□□ 362 F.3d 333, 336 (Sth Cir. 2004), Without jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, federal courts lack the power to adjudicate claims. Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 552; Peoples Nat'l Bank, 362 F.3d at 336. A party may challenge a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Feb. R. Crv. P. 12(b)(1). A federal court must consider a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) before any other challenge because a court must have subject matter jurisdiction before determining the validity of a claim. Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169 (Sth Cir. 1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001). Where the motion to dismiss is based on the complaint alone, the court must decide whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (Sth Cir. 1981). Here, Plaintiff’s pre se complaint lays out the following statement of claim: I was given the incorrect grade based on the negative mental narrative the professor displayed at the time of enrollment. The professor was written up and monitored throughout earlier in the semester. At the time of the final grade, I was give[n] the wrong final exam grade. During the appeal period the course was deleted[,] and other grades was [sic] changed. (Doc. No. 1 at 4). He argues that the above conduct gives rise to a federal question because “[i]t’s a UTS 118 Section 8 administration fraud case,” referring to Defendant’s university policy. (/d.).

Pro se litigants are “entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings.” Dunbar v. Pena, 827 F. App’x 419, 420 (Sth Cir. 2020). Even so, it goes without saying that a violation of university policy alone cannot be the hasis for federal-question jurisdiction. Moreover, even if a state university’s policies were the equivalent to state law, a mere allegation of a violation of state law, without more, is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d 472, 478 (Sth Cir. 2012). Therefore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot.

Signed on this the bil of September 2024.

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chilton v. Texas Southern University, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chilton-v-texas-southern-university-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack