Rodney Williams v. John Morris, IV

Case: 14-60439 Document: 00513168677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-60439
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 25, 2015
RODNEY C. WILLIAMS,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JOHN C. MORRIS, IV, Substitute Trustee; MORRIS & ASSOCIATES;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; BANK OF FAYETTE COUNTY; ADAMS &
EDENS, P.A.; FREDDIE MAC,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:13-CV-123
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney C. Williams appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his pro se complaint which asserted various federal and state law
claims in relation to the 2012 foreclosure of real property (“the Property“)
located at 2815 Austin Road, Nesbitt, Mississippi. On motion of some of the
defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), the
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-60439 Document: 00513168677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2015
No. 14-60439
district court concluded that Williams failed to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, that he lacked standing, and that his claims are barred by res
judicata.
Article III standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Steel Co. v. Citizens
for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998); Xerox Corp. v. Genmoora Corp., 888
F.2d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 1989). Article III requires that, at a minimum, a
plaintiff show an “injury in fact” that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s
conduct and that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). An injury in fact is one that
is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.” Id. at 560 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Williams has failed to allege any injury in fact that is not barred by
collateral estoppel. All of Williams’s claims and the alleged injuries resulting
from the defendants’ actions rest on his alleged ownership interest in the
Property. In dismissing Williams’s state law claims stemming from the
foreclosure proceedings with prejudice, the DeSoto County (Mississippi)
Chancery Court expressly determined that Williams has “no valid, lawful
interest” in the Property. Thus, Williams cannot seek recovery for any of the
alleged harms set forth in his federal complaint, as amended, without
relitigating his purported interest in the Property. See Stafford v. True Temper
Sports, 123 F.3d 291, 295 (5th Cir. 1997). Without any injury in fact, he does
not have standing to bring this action. See Rohm & Hass Tex., Inc. v. Ortiz
Bros. Insulation, Inc., 32 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1994).
Although we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s amended
complaint for lack of standing, we modify the judgment. Ordinarily, when a
complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, including lack of standing, it
should be without prejudice. We therefore modify the district court’s judgment
2
Case: 14-60439 Document: 00513168677 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2015
No. 14-60439
to make it without prejudice and affirm it as thus modified. See, e.g., In re
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010); cf. FED.
R. CIV. P. 41(b).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
3