Court Opinion

ID: 9942697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 19:01:12.707213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:27.800305
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10508            Document: 79-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10508
                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                             February 21, 2024
Meng Ellen Xia,                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Lina T. Ramey, and Associates; William Martinez,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:21-CV-3072
                   ______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Meng Ellen Xia, a pro se litigant, sued her employer for employment
discrimination and harassment, fraud, promissory estoppel, and violations of
the H-1B visa statute. The district court dismissed Xia’s lawsuit under
12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim. Xia now appeals that dismissal and moves
us to appoint her counsel. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal and
DENY Xia’s motion.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10508        Document: 79-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                  No. 23-10508

                                       I.
       On September 16, 2019, Linda T. Ramey, and Associates (“LTRA”)
offered Xia, a Chinese national working in America on an H-1B visa, a job as
a design engineer.     After several months on the job, however, LTRA
terminated Xia. In response, Xia sued LTRA.
       Xia later amended her initial complaint and added William Martinez,
an LTRA employee and Xia’s supervisor, as a codefendant, though it
essentially alleged the same claims as Xia’s initial complaint. Eight days later,
Xia submitted a “Plaintiff’s Brief,” which the district court accepted as Xia’s
second amended complaint. In that same order, the district court directed
Xia to make no further amendments unless permitted by the court.
       If we construe her pro se pleadings liberally, Xia alleges employment
discrimination based on sex, race, and national origin. She further alleges a
hostile working environment claim and claims related to her H-1B visa. Xia
further alleges that: (1) her supervisor told an inappropriate joke around her,
glanced at her inappropriately, invited her to lunch, and followed her to her
car, as well as other grievances; (2) her male coworkers invited her to drink
alcohol with them during working hours; and (3) her coworkers gossiped
about her and made comments about and asked her insensitive questions
relating to her Chinese heritage. Regarding her visa claim, Xia further alleges
that LTRA defrauded her when it promised to help her earn her green card,
fraudulently induced her to accept the employment offer based on that
promise, and fired her in violation of the H-1B statute. Xia’s initial complaint
also alleged that LTRA defamed her to other employers following her
termination.
       On June 9, 2022, LTRA and Martinez (“Appellees”) filed the instant
motion to dismiss. Instead of responding to the motion, Xia moved to clarify
her pleadings and to remove her second amended complaint. The district

                                       2
Case: 23-10508        Document: 79-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                 No. 23-10508

court granted Xia’s motion to clarify, which reinstated her first amended
complaint as the operative pleading, and referred the motion to dismiss to a
magistrate judge. In a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge
recommended that the district court dismiss each of Xia’s claims with
prejudice. The district court adopted the R&R, over Xia’s objection, and
dismissed the case with prejudice. The district court then declined to certify
the order for an in forma pauperis appeal, ruling that Xia’s claims were
frivolous.
                                      II.
       Now on appeal, Xia argues that: (1) the district court erred by
dismissing her claims under Rule 12(b)(6); (2) the district court erred by
failing to rely on the factual allegations in both of her amended complaints;
and (3) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Xia to
amend her complaint for a third time.           Furthermore, Xia moves for
appointment of counsel to represent her. We will discuss each issue below.
                                      i.
       We first turn to Xia’s argument that the district court erred in
dismissing her claims under Rule 12(b)(6). A district court's grant of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Vizaline, L.L.C. v. Tracy,
949 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 2020). We accept all well-pled facts as true,
construing all reasonable inferences in the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir.
2020). “But we do not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).   “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
complaint ‘does not need detailed factual allegations,’ but must [establish]
the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations
in a complaint that when assumed to be true ‘raise a right to relief above the

                                       3
Case: 23-10508        Document: 79-1         Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                  No. 23-10508

speculative level.’” Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
       Notwithstanding her three pleadings, Xia’s claims fail to satisfy the
standard for survival. Dismissal was thus proper. Scanlan v. Texas A&M
Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). Xia’s discrimination claim, which
for example involves her allegations surrounding her supervisor and
coworkers, is deficient because she failed to establish that her claims were
caused by her race, national origin, sex, or any other protected characteristic.
Sanchez v. Chevron N. Am. Expl. & Prod. Co., No. 20-30783, 2021 WL
5513509, at *5 (5th Cir. 2021). Xia’s hostile work environment claim, which
involves essentially the same facts as her discrimination claim, fails because
the alleged instances of abuse are too infrequent and inconsequential to be
legally significant. E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., L.L.C., 731 F.3d 444,
453 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Xia’s promissory estoppel and fraud claims,
which involve her employer’s alleged promise to help transfer Xia’s H-1B via
to a green card, fail because her attached exhibit refutes the existence of that
promise. Without such a promise, both claims necessarily fail. Esty v. Beal
Bank S.S.B., 298 S.W.3d 280, 305 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2009, no pet.); Elson
v. Black, 56 F.4th 1002, 1008 (5th Cir. 2023). Xia’s H-1B visa statutory claim
fails because she failed to allege that she had exhausted her administrative
remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n); therefore, she has no private
right of action. See Watson v. Elec. Data Sys., 191 F. App'x 315 (5th Cir. 2006);
see also Shah v. Wilco Sys., Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 641, 648 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Finally, Xia’s defamation claim from her initial complaint also fails for its
vagueness because she did not identify a specific defamatory statement or
when or where it was made. Mandawala v. Ne. Baptist Hosp., Counts 1, 2, &
11, 16 F.4th 1144, 1153 (5th Cir. 2021); Ameen v. Merck & Co., 226 F. App'x
363, 370 (5th Cir. 2007).
                                       ii.

                                       4
Case: 23-10508         Document: 79-1         Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                  No. 23-10508

         Xia next argues that the district court failed to consider the factual
allegations found in both of her amended complaints, a concern that formed
the crux of her motion to clarify her pleadings. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Carmouche v. Hooper, 77 F.4th 362, 367 (5th Cir. 2023). Both the
magistrate judge’s R&R and the district court’s order, however, explicitly
considered the allegations found in the first and second amended complaints.
Moreover, the district court granted Xia’s motion to clarify her pleadings,
which further resolves any doubt on this issue. As such, the district court did
not abuse its discretion here.
                                       iii.
         Xia also argues that the district court erred by forbidding Xia from
further amending her complaint without leave of the court. We review for an
abuse of discretion. Carmouche, 77 F.4th at 367. Leave to amend should be
freely given, Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2017), unless the
plaintiff has pleaded her “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768
(5th Cir. 2010). Here, Xia twice amended her initial complaint, and the
district court accepted these amended pleadings and granted Xia’s later
motion to clarify. At this point, Xia cannot demonstrate how additional
amendments would elevate her claims to be legally cognizable. Residents of
Gordon Plaza, Inc. v. Cantrell, 25 F.4th 288, 302 (5th Cir. 2022).
Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion here. Id.
                                       iv.
         Finally, Xia moves for appointed counsel to represent her on appeal.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this case, and Xia
cannot     demonstrate    the    exceptional     circumstances   that   warrant
appointment. Tampico v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 387, 392 (5th Cir. 2021).
Therefore, we deny Xia’s motion for appointed counsel.
                                      III.

                                        5
Case: 23-10508        Document: 79-1       Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                 No. 23-10508

       In sum, Xia cannot show that the district court erred by: (1) dismissing
her claims, (2) not relying on the allegations found in both of her amended
complaints, or (3) refusing to permit her to further amend her claims. Nor
can Xia show that she is entitled to appointed counsel, and her motion is
DENIED.       Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the
complaint is in all respects
                                                               AFFIRMED.

                                       6