Greene v. St. Vincent De Paul - Cardinal Manning Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-2769
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL -
CARDINAL MANNING CENTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is pro se Plaintiff Cedric Greene’s (“Plaintiff”)
Petition for Relief and Leave to Proceed (ECF No. 1), Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2), Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 6), and
Motion 	to 	Reset 	Conference 	(ECF 	No. 	7). 	The 	Court 	RECOMMENDS
Plaintiffs’ Petition (ECF No. 1) be DENIED, Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF
No. 2) be DENIED, and all other pending motions (ECF Nos. 6–7) be DENIED
AS MOOT, and Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for the federal judiciary to hear
a case.” 	The Lamar Co., L.L.C. v. Mississippi Transp. Comm’n, 976 F.3d 524,
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 8).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
528 (5th Cir. 2020). 	This is because federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a
claim. 	Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006,
1010 (5th Cir. 1998). 	Federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction
over two types of cases: cases involving a federal question or cases involving
diversity of citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question),
1332 (diversity). 	A “federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte.” 	McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005). 	As
the federal rules prescribe, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” F ED. R. C IV . P.
12(h)(3).
Here, it is clear from Plaintiffs’ Petition for Relief and Leave to Proceed
(ECF No. 1) that this case should be dismissed. 	Plaintiff’s filing begins by
stating that this “civil action . . . didn’t occur within the Court’s geographical
area” and explains that he is only filing in the Fifth Circuit because he has
“various restrictions and filing bars against his name” in other circuits. (Id. at
2). 	Plaintiff states this case is a “civil claim in which the Cardinal Manning
Center imposed an illegal restraint on Greene . . . in which . . . Greene was held
in a wrongful homeless facility confinement.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff’s statements,
however, do not suggest that this Court has jurisdiction. 	See Presidential
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
Candidate No. P60005535 v. World Intell. Prop. Org., No. 9:25-cv-114, 2025
WL 1911409, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 12, 2025), report and recommendation
adopted, 	No. 	9:25-cv-114, 	2025 	WL 	1907479 	(E.D. 	Tex. 	July 	10, 	2025)
(“Plaintiff’s listing of federal statutes and constitutional provisions does not,
ipso facto, create subject matter jurisdiction and there is no basis for diversity
as Plaintiff does not plead the citizenship of any of the parties.”).
In summary, Plaintiffs’ filing fails to establish a basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 governing federal question
jurisdiction or 28 U.S.C. § 1333 governing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
As such, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. 	See Benton v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. 4:24-cv-112,
2024 WL 3237543, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2024), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 4:24-cv-112, 2024 WL 3246071 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2024) (“The
procedure 	for 	sua 	sponte 	dismissal 	in 	this 	case 	is 	fair 	because 	this
Memorandum and Recommendation puts Plaintiff on notice of the Court’s
intention to dismiss and Plaintiff has 14 days to file an objection and explain
why his case should be allowed to proceed.”).
Finally, because the pleading of a pro se plaintiff should be liberally
construed and held to less stringent standards, courts sometimes afford pro se
plaintiffs 	the 	opportunity 	to 	amend 	their 	pleadings 	to 	cure 	any 	defects.
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
Anyanwu v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 3:14-cv-2638, 2015 WL 9595416, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Dec. 4, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:14-cv-2638, 2015
WL 	9593625 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	Dec. 	31, 	2015). 	The 	Fifth 	Circuit 	generally
recommends the following guidance: if a liberally read complaint suggests the
plaintiff has a claim that is merely inadequately or inartfully pleaded, the
plaintiff ought to be given at least one chance to reframe. See Cledera v. United
States, 834 F. App’x 969, 972 (5th Cir. 2021). 	Although a pro se complaint
generally 	should 	not 	be 	dismissed 	without 	leave 	to 	amend, 	there 	is 	an
exception if any amendment to the complaint would be futile. 	Id. 	The Fifth
Circuit has interpreted the term “futility” to mean that the complaint as
amended would be subject to dismissal. 	Chandler v. United States, 338 F.
Supp. 3d 592, 600 (N.D. Tex. 2018). An amendment that fails to cure a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction may be considered futile. Id.
Here, 	the 	Court 	lacks 	subject-matter 	jurisdiction, 	and 	the 	lack 	of
jurisdiction cannot be cured by an opportunity to amend. 	See Presidential
Candidate, 2025 WL 1911409, at *3 (collecting cases); Isom v. United States
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-cv-948, 2021 WL 2232052, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
28, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. TYESHA N. ISOM v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., No. 4:20-cv-948, 2021
WL 2224345 (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2021) (same); see also Sichanthavong v.
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
Hernandez, No. 2:22-cv-118, 2022 WL 2718528, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2022),
aff’d, No. 22-10694, 2022 WL 16707988 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (“Additionally,
the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims to be so confusing, ambiguous, redundant,
vague, 	and 	unintelligible 	that 	amendment 	would 	be 	futile.” 	(internal
quotations omitted)). As such, allowing leave to amend would be futile.
Finally, the Undersigned has handled other cases brought by Plaintiff in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. See 4:26-cv-02445 Greene et
al v. MV Transportation. Just as in this case, the Undersigned recommended
dismissing Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave, IFP application, and other pending
motions. (See id. at ECF No. 9). As Plaintiff seems to be aware, Courts possess
“jurisdiction to impose a pre-filing injunction to deter vexatious, abusive, and
harassing litigation.” Nix v. Major League Baseball, 62 F.4th 920, 936 (5th Cir.
2023). As such, the Court warns Plaintiff that pro se litigants have “no license
to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and
abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Hou., N.A., 808
F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs’ Petition
for Relief and Leave to Proceed (ECF No. 1) be DENIED and the case be
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	for 	lack 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction. 	In light of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, the Court FURTHER
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 2) be DENIED and all
other pending motions (ECF Nos. 6–7) be DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on May 8, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02769 Document 9 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6