Leonard v. Long et al

1
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GENTRY LEONARD , 	§
#00647348, 	§
PLAINTIFF , 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-2999-N-BK
§
BRIAN LONG, ET AL ., 	§
DEFENDANTS . 	§
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation
in this case. 	Plaintiff objected and the court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the
remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Doc. 8. Finding
no error, the objections are overruled. 	Therefore, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and, in the alternative, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
I.
On November 18, 2025, the court filed an electronic order notifying Plaintiff that (1) this
action appeared duplicative of his other pending case Leonard v. Thomas, et al., No. 3:24-CV-
1780-D-BN, and (2) the complaint and supplement did not allege a factual basis or causes of
action that stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. 	Doc. 5 (citing Doc. 3 at 4
(referencing another “complaint” for factual allegations) and Doc. 4 at 2-7 (listing defendants but
referencing a second supplemental pleading not yet filed)). The court thus ordered Plaintiff to
inform the court whether he intended to proceed with this case by December 9, 2025. Doc. 5.
Case 3:25-cv-02999-N-BK Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
Because Plaintiff did not respond, the court filed findings and conclusions on December 19,
2025, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a
court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
In his objection, Plaintiff asserts that the clerk did not properly serve him with a copy of
the November 18 order. Doc. 8. He states that the clerk mailed him a copy of the notice of
electronic filing but not a complete copy of the order. Plaintiff thus asks for additional time to
respond to the court’s order. 1
Upon careful review of the record, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections.
First, Plaintiff concedes receiving a copy of the November 18 notice of electronic filing.
Doc. 8 at 2. That notice contained the complete text of the electronic order. Contrary to Plaintiff’s
belief, the court did not issue a separate order in paper format. The clerk of the court thus properly
mailed Plaintiff the notice of electronic filing.
Second, Plaintiff did not timely respond to the November 18 electronic order. In an
attempt to excuse his failure to respond, Plaintiff now argues that he “had no knowledge of the
magistrate order.” Doc. 8 at 3. He is wrong. The notice of electronic filing contained the
complete text of the electronic order, as explained, and Plaintiff purposefully failed to respond.
His belated attempt to claim ignorance of the order is unpersuasive and lacks any merit.
Third, this action appears to stem from parole matters and Plaintiff sues some of the same
Texas parole officers and supervisors as in Leonard v. Thomas, et al., No. 3:24-CV-1780-D-BN
(N.D. Tex. filed on July 10, 2024), which is pending judicial screening. Apart from conclusory
assertions, Plaintiff presents nothing in his objection to show that this action is not duplicative of
1 The objection is considered filed on December 31, 2025, pursuant to the “mailbox rule.” Doc. 8
at 4-5. The envelope, however, was not post-marked until January 8, 2026. Doc. 8 at 6.
Case 3:25-cv-02999-N-BK Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
Case No. 3:24-CV-1780-D-BN. See Doc. 8 at 3. See also Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-
95 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that an in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous when it “duplicates
allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff,” and noting courts should
ensure “that the plaintiff obtains one bite at the litigation apple-but not more”).
This action is therefore dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court
order.
II.
In the alternative, the court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint and supplement do not allege
a factual basis or causes of action that state a plausible claim. Doc. 3; Doc. 4.
Because Plaintiff is incarcerated and has not paid the filing fee, the court presumes that
he is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, his complaint is subject to review for
frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Those statutes
provide for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint, if the court finds that it (1) is frivolous or
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-02999-N-BK Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
The plausibility analysis begins with the court’s consideration of whether a party has
complied with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (noting
that Rule 12(b)(6)’s plausibility element derives from the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a) that
the complaint “possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief”) (cleaned up).
Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the “showing” contemplated
by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than just allege legal conclusions or recite the
elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3. Specifically, Rule 8 requires
that a complaint (1) set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” and (2) be “simple, concise and direct.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), (d).
As relevant here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a). His conclusory
statements do not even rise to the level of “threadbare recitals” of the elements of a cause of
action. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The court recognizes that pro se
pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, “[e]ven a liberally construed pro se . . .
complaint . . . must set forth facts giving rise to a claim on which relief may be granted.”
Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993).
Under the most liberal construction, Plaintiff’s complaint and supplement (the only two
pleadings filed in this case) fail to satisfy the standard imposed by Rule 8(a). Doc. 3; Doc. 4.
Simply put, Plaintiff has presented no factual contentions or causes of actions. Because Plaintiff
has failed to present more than “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement,”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, he has failed to plead a plausible claim. Therefore, this action is
dismissed, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Case 3:25-cv-02999-N-BK Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
* * *
Finding no error, the court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection and ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. This action
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack
of prosecution. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication
on the merits” unless otherwise specified). 	In the alternative, this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
SO ORDERED this 19 th day of February, 2026.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02999-N-BK Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>