Williams v. American Commercial Lines

Case: 21-30609 Document: 00516330296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 24, 2022 No. 21-30609

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Robert H. Williams,

Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

American Commercial Lines, Incorporated; Platinum

Equity, L.L.C.; Platinum Equity Advisors, L.L.C.;

Gordon S. LeBlanc, Jr.; Hermann Moyse, III; ACBL

Transportation Services, L.L.C.; ACL Transportation

Services, L.L.C.; ACL I Corporation; Commercial Barge Line Company; American Commercial Barge Line, L.L.C.; American Commercial Lines International, L.L.C.;

ACBL OLDCO, L.L.C.; ACBL River Operations, L.L.C.;

ACL Professional Services, Incorporated; Commercial

Barge Line Holdings, L.L.C.; American Commercial

Barge Line Holding Corporation; American Commercial

Barge Line Company,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:20-CV-139

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This suit involves myriad claims by Plaintiff against fifteen entities and two individuals for alleged racketeering activities. Plaintiff cites various statutes in his pro se Amended Complaint, such as: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations); § 1503(a) (obstruction of justice by influencing or injuring officer or juror); § 1513(e) (obstruction of justice by retaliating against a witness, victim or an informant); § 1001 (making false statements or entries in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government); § 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before a department or agency of the United States); § 1343 (wire fraud); and § 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim or informant in an official proceeding). We, like the district court, denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. We interpret the Complaint liberally, but we agree with the district court that Plaintiff has not satisfied federal jurisdiction: he has pled no facts supporting either a federal question or complete diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1333 (diversity jurisdiction). There is an issue, however, with the nature of the district court’s dismissal. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing this case with prejudice, either for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, but made clear that it was dismissing the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) provide distinct grounds for dismissal of a claim for relief. Rule 12(b)(6) applies when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits and is typically with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is precluded from bringing the same claims again. Rule 12(b)(1), alternatively, applies to claims over which a federal district court “lack[s] . . . subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dismissal for want of subject- matter jurisdiction is without prejudice, because a court without jurisdiction is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims. See Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020) (“A court’s dismissal of a case resulting from a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a determination of the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction. Accordingly, such a dismissal should be made without prejudice.” (quotation omitted)).

Where, as here, a rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with a rule 12(b)(6) motion courts must consider the jurisdictional challenge first. See Wolcott v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court did so here, correctly finding jurisdiction lacking. But the district court then dismissed the action with prejudice, which our caselaw prohibits. 1 E.g., Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia, 231 F.3d 994, 1000 (5th Cir.

2000) (“The district court properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction but it erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice. Since the court lacked jurisdiction over the action, it had no power to render a judgment on the merits.”). We therefore VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.