Court Opinion

ID: 9378339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 01:00:54.287378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.445725
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50667        Document: 00516671711             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50667
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                 March 9, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Alejandro Hernandez,                                                              Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant

                                            versus

   Constable R.A. Sommers Precinct #7, Alberto Enrique
   Hernandez, Reynaldo Aaron Morales, and Victor
   Vasquez

                                               Defendants—Appellees
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:19-CV-79-FM
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Wiener, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Alejandro Hernandez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
   claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and order denying his motion for leave to
   file a second amended complaint.              He argues that the district court
   incorrectly granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and abused its discretion

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50667      Document: 00516671711        Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/09/2023

   when it denied his request for leave to amend. We AFFIRM the judgment of
   the district court.
          This case arises out of Hernandez’s eviction from his home, and
   subsequent foreclosure on the property. Hernandez filed at least seven
   actions in state court challenging his evictions and alleging that he did not
   receive the requisite notice. Hernandez then brought suit in federal court
   alleging that he was owed a 90 day notice to vacate the property under the
   Protecting Tenants and Foreclosure Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–22, § 702,
   123 Stat. 1632, 1661 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note (Supp.V.2012)). In
   addition, Hernandez argues that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and
   1986 by conspiring to deprive him of his equal protection of the law that is
   afforded to tenants under the Protecting Tenants and Foreclosure Act and
   by refusing to prevent the alleged violation under § 1985.
          The district court denied each of these claims. Hernandez’s claims
   under the Protecting Tenants and Foreclosure Act are not cognizable, as that
   Act does not create a private cause of action. Accordingly, Hernandez’s
   claims under §§ 1985 and 1986 are likewise not cognizable as they are
   premised on his right to recover under the Protecting Tenants and
   Foreclosure Act. In addition, Hernandez’s Fair Housing Act claim fails, as
   he did not plead facts claiming that he has children, and thus cannot be
   covered under the Act’s familial status provision. The district court properly
   dismissed all of Hernandez’s claims.
          In lieu of dismissal, Hernandez asked the district court to grant his
   leave to amend. The district court denied this request because (1) Hernandez
   had already been given several opportunities to replead, but he repeatedly
   failed to cure the deficiencies in his complaint, and (2) allowing leave to
   amend would be futile and needlessly increase costs. The district court did
   not abuse its discretion. Yumilicious Franchise LLC v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170,
Case: 22-50667     Document: 00516671711        Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/09/2023

   177 (5th Cir. 2016) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion in denying leave to amend a countercomplaint even though it was
   the party’s first request, as the party had not explained why the amendment
   would be appropriate and more than 15 months had elapsed between the
   motion to dismiss and the request for leave to amend).
         For these reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.