Lucas Williams v. Sergio Jimenez, et seq.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LUCAS WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:26CV58 ) SERGIO JIMENEZ, et seq., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on pro 2. All defendants conspired se Plaintiff Lucas Williams’s together in violation of due application to proceed in forma process, pauperis. See Docket Entry 1. For the 3. This Court has jurisdiction reasons set forth below, the Court will under federal law. grant the application for the limited purpose of allowing the Court to Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, Docket Entry 2. consider a recommendation of dismissal. The Court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if it fails to state a I. DISCUSSION claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a Williams’s Complaint alleges only the claim, “a complaint must contain following: sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 1. Upon information and plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. belief, Defendants Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) conspired with individuals (quoting and citing Bell Atlantic Corp. in LT-325749-22KI, in v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 which the next court (2007)). That is, a plaintiff must appearance is scheduled for make factual allegations that are 2/4/25 before Defendant “enough to raise a right to relief above Sergio Jimenez, the speculative level.” See Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (citation modified). “Thus, while a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate state-court judgment, the Rooker- in a complaint that the right to relief Feldman doctrine bars the claim. See is ‘probable,’ the complaint must Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234-35 advance the plaintiffs claim ‘across (2023) (explaining that “the doctrine the line from _ conceivable to prohibits federal courts from plausible.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 adjudicating cases brought by state- F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting court losing parties challenging state- Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The court judgments” and citing Rooker v. Court “accepts all well-pled facts as Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) true and construes these facts in the and D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 light most favorable to the plaintiff, U.S. 462 (1983)). Moreover, even a but does not consider legal liberal construction of Williams’s conclusions, elements of a cause of Complaint cannot save it from action, and bare assertions devoid of dismissal. factual enhancement[,] . . . unwarranted inferences, II. CONCLUSION unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. It is therefore ORDERED that Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d Williams’s application to proceed in 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation forma pauperis, Docket Entry 1, is modified). A pro se_ plaintiffs GRANTED for the limited purpose complaint must be construed liberally of allowing the Court to consider a in his favor. See Jehovah v. Clarke, recommendation of dismissal. It is 798 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2015). RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. The allegations in Williams’s § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a Complaint do not plausibly allege any claim. claim against any defendant.

To the extent that Williams’s due process claim is a challenge to any a Gibson McFadden United States Magistrate Judge March 12, 2026 Durham, North Carolina