Court Opinion

ID: 9890450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 00:00:40.479468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.340927
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10513         Document: 00516929077             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10513
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 12, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Celeste Elizabeth Howey,                                                            Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Truist Bank,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CV-747
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant, Celeste Elizabeth Howey, proceeding pro se,
   appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint for failure to
   state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons
   set forth below, we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10513        Document: 00516929077              Page: 2       Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                          No. 23-10513

                                    I. BACKGROUND
           On August 25, 2022, Howey filed a complaint against Defendants,
   Cendera Funding, Inc. (“Cendera”), and Truist Bank (“Truist”), asserting
   a “[t]ort claim for negligence.” Howey alleged that in March 2012, she
   signed a “Deed of Trust” with a promissory note in the amount of
   $404,219.00 in favor of Cendera. She asserted that subsequently the Deed
   of Trust was extinguished and a “new Novation Agreement” was recorded,
   somehow making her the creditor and Cendera the debtor. 1 At the same
   time, Howey made the bizarre allegation that Cendera did not disclose that
   the promissory note “create[d] the money which Cendera pretend[ed]
   loaning Howey, a criminal act, better known as a [P]onzi scheme.” She
   asserted that Defendants breached “fiduciary and legal duties and obligations
   owed to her” when they “illegally proceed[ed] with a foreclosure sale and
   debt collection action against her” and, in doing so, violated her
   constitutional rights. As relief, Howey seeks release from any debt owed to
   Defendants and judgment in her favor for $404,219.00 “for [Defendants’]
   culpable negligent conduct.”
           Defendant-Appellee Truist, the assignee of the Deed of Trust, was
   served with Howey’s complaint on August 26, 2022. 2 On September 16,
   2022, the last day of the deadline for filing an answer to the complaint,3
   Truist filed a motion requesting a fourteen-day extension of time (until

           _____________________
           1
           An “Assignment of Deed of Trust” in the record indicates that Cendera assigned
   the Deed of Trust to Truist in April 2022.
           2
            The summons for Cendera was returned unexecuted because the “business [wa]s
   closed, out of business.” Because service was not effected on Cendera, the district court
   dismissed it from this action without prejudice. Howey has not appealed that dismissal.
           3
            Rule 12 provides that “[a] defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after
   being served with the summons and complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).

                                                2
Case: 23-10513        Document: 00516929077             Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                         No. 23-10513

   September 30) to respond to Howey’s complaint. On September 19, 2022,
   Howey filed an Application for Entry of Default against Truist. The district
   court referred both motions to the magistrate judge (MJ), who granted
   Truist’s motion for extension and denied Howey’s application for entry of
   default. 4
           On September 30, 2022, Truist filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
   Howey’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Howey then filed a First
   Amended Complaint, repeating the same allegations from her original
   complaint. The day after Howey filed her amended complaint, Truist filed
   another Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint.
   Howey opposed Truist’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and also filed a Second
   Application for Entry of Default. She argued that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was
   not a rule-compliant response to an amended complaint. Howey asserted
   that she consequently was entitled to a default judgment against Truist.
           The MJ recommended that Truist’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion be granted.
   Specifically, the MJ determined that Howey failed to allege facts sufficient to
   state a federal constitutional or breach of fiduciary duty claim against Truist;
   that she failed to allege facts setting forth claims for an invalid lien or
   wrongful foreclosure; and that she failed to allege facts supporting claims of
   wrongful debt collection, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Overruling
   Howey’s objections, the district court adopted the MJ’s recommendation
   and granted Truist’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The district court thereafter

           _____________________
           4
            Howey filed objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings. She complained that he
   did not “provide the points and authorities” for granting Truist’s motion for extension of
   time and that the ruling violated her Fifth Amendment rights. Howey made other
   outlandish accusations against the magistrate judge, including that he was “advocating the
   overthrow of the United States Constitutional form of government,” was “willfully
   conducting criminal activities . . . to plunder Howey’s loot,” and committed “felony
   crimes” by way of his rulings.

                                               3
Case: 23-10513         Document: 00516929077              Page: 4       Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                          No. 23-10513

   issued a judgment dismissing Howey’s complaint with prejudice. Howey
   filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
           On appeal, Howey first argues that Truist’s motion for extension of
   time to file an answer or other responsive pleading to her original complaint
   was dilatory and/or moot, and that the district court abused its discretion in
   granting the motion. She contends that Truist was required to file its motion
   “with enough time for the Trial Court to grant Defendant’s motion before
   the 21-day deadline expire[d] on 9/16/2022.”
           Howey is mistaken. Under the plain language of Rule 6(b), Truist was
   required to file its motion for extension of time “before the original time or
   its extension expire[d]” for filing an answer to Howey’s complaint. Contrary
   to Howey’s contentions, the rule does not require the filing of the motion
   with enough time for the district court to grant the motion before the deadline
   expired. Although Truist filed its motion for extension of time on the last day
   of the twenty-one day deadline, the motion was timely, not dilatory, and
   could be granted “for good cause.” 5 Howey has not shown that the court
   abused its discretion in granting Truist a fourteen-day extension of time to
   respond to Howey’s original complaint. 6
           Howey next contends that Truist was required to answer her First
   Amended Complaint within fourteen days after service. Howey is correct
   that Rule 15 sets forth a fourteen-day deadline for responding to an amended

           _____________________
           5
               Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
           6
            We review trial court decisions regarding extensions of time of filing deadlines for
   abuse of discretion. See Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161 (5th Cir.
   2006).

                                                4
Case: 23-10513           Document: 00516929077              Page: 5      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                            No. 23-10513

   pleading. 7 However, Truist responded well within that deadline—it filed a
   Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the day after Howey filed her amended
   complaint. Truist’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion was timely. Thus, contrary to
   Howey’s contentions, Truist did not default, and consequently she was not
   entitled to a judgment of default in her favor.
           Howey next asserts that the district court should not have granted
   Truist’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. She simply states that a “liberal reading” of
   her amended complaint “clearly gives an indication that a valid claim might
   be stated.” Although this Court liberally construes pro se briefs, “pro se
   parties must still brief the issues.” 8               Howey provides no argument
   challenging the bases for the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Thus,
   it “is the same as if [s]he had not appealed that judgment.” 9
           Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           7
               Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(3).
           8
            Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
   225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be preserved.”).
           9
               Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                                  5