Court Opinion

ID: 9382552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 00:00:47.813726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.636820
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10314        Document: 00516690362             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                March 27, 2023
                                      No. 22-10314
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                    ____________

   Gwendolyn D. Gabriel; Barbara J. Gabriel; Regina
   Brown; Brittny Washington; Kenneth J. Gabriel,

                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Merry Outlaw; Bridgett Zoltowski; Judge Tonya
   Parker; John Nation; Lorenzo Brown; John Frick,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CV-60
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Gwendolyn D. Gabriel, Barbara J. Gabriel, Regina Brown, Brittny
   Washington, and Kenneth J. Gabriel (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in
   the district court pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
   Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, against Merry

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10314      Document: 00516690362           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10314

   Outlaw, Bridgett Zoltowski, Judge Tonya Parker, John Nation, Lorenzo
   Brown, and John Frick (collectively, “Defendants”). The district court
   dismissed the claims of Regina Brown, Barbara Gabriel, Kenneth Gabriel,
   and Brittny Washington without prejudice for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction. The court dismissed Gwendolyn Gabriel’s claims seeking non-
   monetary relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed her
   claims seeking monetary relief for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs timely
   appealed.
          We review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
   Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011).
   The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge
   (“MJ”) to dismiss the claims of all Plaintiffs except Gwendolyn Gabriel for
   lack of standing. The MJ’s implicit finding that Gwendolyn Gabriel had
   established Article III standing was correct, see Susan B. Anthony List v.
   Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157–58 (2014), so the district court should not have
   dismissed the case in part for lack of standing, see Vill. of Arlington Heights v.
   Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 & n.9 (stating that when at least
   one plaintiff has demonstrated standing, the court need not consider whether
   the other plaintiffs also have standing).
          The district court also adopted the MJ’s ruling that Plaintiffs’ claims
   were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine insofar as they sought an order
   that would void specific state court judgments and another order requiring
   the Defendants to remove notices of lis pendens that they had placed on
   identified properties. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is confined to . . . cases
   brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
   judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and
   inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil
   Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). That doctrine

                                           2
Case: 22-10314      Document: 00516690362           Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10314

   does not apply to individuals who were not parties to the underlying state-
   court proceeding. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464 (2006). Because
   Gwendolyn Gabriel and Regina Brown are the only plaintiffs who were
   parties to the state-court litigation at issue, here, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
   bars only their claims—and then only to the extent that they seek “relief that
   directly attacks the validity of an existing state court judgment.” Weaver v.
   Texas Cap. Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 2011). We therefore affirm
   the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only as to
   the claims of Gwendolyn Gabriel and Regina Brown seeking reversal of the
   state court judgments. We also modify the district court’s judgment to reflect
   that these claims are dismissed without prejudice.
          Applying de novo review, Meador v. Apple, Inc., 911 F.3d 260, 264 (5th
   Cir. 2018), we also affirm the dismissal of the remainder of the Plaintiffs’
   claims for their failures to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6), albeit for slightly
   different reasons than those expressed by the district court, see Berry v. Brady,
   192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (“this Court may affirm on any basis
   supported by the record.”).
          “[A]ny RICO claim necessitates 1) a person who engages in 2) a pattern
   of racketeering activity, 3) connected to the acquisition, establishment,
   conduct, or control of an enterprise.” Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 204 (5th
   Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “A pattern of racketeering activity consists of
   two or more predicate criminal acts that are (1) related and (2) amount to or
   pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d
   261, 263 (5th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must plead the elements of the criminal
   offenses that constitute the predicate acts, Elliot v. Foufas, 867 F.2d 877, 880
   (5th Cir. 1989), and must show that the alleged racketeering activity was both
   the “but for” and proximate cause of the injury to his business or property,
   Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp, 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992).

                                           3
Case: 22-10314       Document: 00516690362          Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10314

            The Plaintiffs’ claims against Nation and Frick amount to complaints
   about their actions as attorneys in the underlying state court proceedings and
   cannot form the basis for civil RICO liability. See Snow Ingredients, Inc. v.
   SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 525 (5th Cir. 2016). The Plaintiffs’ claims
   against Judge Parker arise out of acts performed in the exercise of her judicial
   function and are therefore barred by judicial immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31
   F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994); Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 515 (5th Cir.
   2005).
            With regard to Outlaw, Plaintiffs have not shown that her asserted
   predicate RICO acts “constitute or threaten long-term criminal activity,”
   since all of her alleged wrongful acts were taken as part of her defense of the
   underlying state lawsuit, which has now ended. In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d 733,
   742–43 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, Gwendolyn Gabriel has not pleaded facts
   sufficient to state a sexual harassment or retaliation claim against Outlaw
   under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
   (“Title VII”). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
            With respect to Zoltowski, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
   her alleged attempt to bribe a witness in the state court via a settlement offer
   was a “but for” or proximate cause of any injury to their business or property.
   See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268. Plaintiffs have also failed to state a RICO claim
   against Lorenzo Brown predicated on his alleged fraud because they have
   failed to plead the required elements of any type of fraud that is recognized
   as a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1); Elliot, 867 F.2d at 880.
   Neither has Gwendolyn Gabriel pleaded any facts that could form the basis
   of a sexual harassment or retaliation claim against Lorenzo Brown under Title
   VII. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–78.

                                          4
Case: 22-10314      Document: 00516690362          Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                    No. 22-10314

          Insofar as Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s decision to issue a
   sanction warning, they have abandoned any such challenge by their failure to
   brief it on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          In light of the foregoing, we MODIFY the district court’s judgment
   to reflect dismissal of Gwendolyn Gabriel’s and Regina Brown’s claims
   without prejudice to the extent they sought reversal of the state court
   judgments, and we AFFIRM that judgment as thus MODIFIED.

                                          5