von Falkenhorst v. Hunter ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20154 Document: 00516935989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
____________
October 18, 2023
No. 23-20154 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Rainer von Falkenhorst, III,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Charles Clinton Hunter; Scott G. Hamilton,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-1171
______________________________
Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Rainer von Falkenhorst, III, proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit against Defendant-Appellees
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20154 Document: 00516935989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 23-20154
Charles Clinton Hunter and Scott G. Hamilton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 1
We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and
we must determine whether the pleaded facts state plausible claims that are
cognizable in law. NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393 (5th
Cir. 2015) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While
“pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards” than those drafted
by a lawyer, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v.
Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (first quoting Miller
v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981); and then quoting S. Christian
Leadership Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of the State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir.
2001)).
Here, von Falkenhorst’s complaint provides only legal conclusions
that, during Texas state court proceedings, Defendants deprived him of due
process, deprived him of equal protection of the law, conspired to defraud
him, and violated his right to seek redress of grievances. The complaint
provides no factual allegations to support his claims, and the mere legal
conclusions he provided are insufficient to state a claim. See Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion to
appoint counsel filed by von Falkenhorst is DENIED.
_____________________
1
Another panel of this court previously dismissed von Falkenhorst’s appeal against
the other Defendant-Appellees, Cory Don Sepolio, Gerald B. Sager, and Robert C.
McCabe.
2