Brazier v. Tarrant Equity LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
RASHAD BRAZIER 	§
§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL NO. 4:26-CV-351-P
§
TARRANT EQUITY LLC, ET AL. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
On March 24, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Rashad Brazier (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint [doc.
1] against Defendant Tarrant Equity LLC and Defendant Capital Fund 1 LLC (collectively
“Defendants”). In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings a single claim under the Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act (“PFTA”). (Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Pl.’s Compl.”) at 2.) Plaintiff alleges he is
the tenant of 3417 Montague Street, Fort Worth, Texas (the “property”). 	(Pl.’s Compl. at 2.)
Plaintiff further alleges that “Defendants attempted eviction and enforcement actions without
providing the required federal protections including the required ninety (90) day notice to vacate.”
(Pl.’s Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff is seeking “declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement
actions that violate” the PFTA. (Pl.’s Compl. at 2.)
In an order dated March 25, 2026, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) [doc. 8]. 	Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code sets forth provisions for
claimants proceeding IFP. 	Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall, sua sponte,
dismiss a case proceeding IFP if the court determines that it is frivolous or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if 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 when, assuming that all the allegations in
Case 4:26-cv-00351-P Document 10 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact, such allegations fail to raise a right to relief about
the speculative level. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
In this case, the Complaint is both frivolous and fails to state a claim because the PFTA
does not provide a private right of action. Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1169
(9th Cir. 2013); Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149, 158 (6th Cir. 2014); Bey v.
PEF Capital Properties, LLC, No. 3:12-CV-2371-L, 2013 WL 2094100, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15,
2013) (collecting cases). Instead, “the PTFA only provides tenants with federal defenses to
eviction[.]” Logan, 722 F.3d at 1169 (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C11–01932, 2011
WL 2194117, at *1 (N.D.Cal. June 6, 2011)).1
Accordingly, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that this case should DISMISSED,
sua sponte, for being frivolous as well as for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
See Miller v. Sam Houston State Univ., 986 F.3d 880, 888-89 (5th Cir. 2021) (stating that a district
court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim sua sponte as long as the procedure is
fair or as long as the plaintiff has alleged his best case).
Because he appears pro se, Plaintiff’s pleadings are entitled to more lenient scrutiny than
pleadings drafted by lawyers. 	See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 	In this case,
however, granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile because Plaintiff can add no facts that
would overcome the lack of a private right of action under the PFTA. Stripling v. Jordan Prod.
Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000) (futility in this context is “interpreted it to mean that
the amended complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted”). Thus, it
is clear that that no amount of liberal construction could manufacture a viable legal claim here.
1 Quotation marks omitted.
Case 4:26-cv-00351-P Document 10 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
RECOMMENDATION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	undersigned 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	this 	case 	be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). 	Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed
factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 4:26-cv-00351-P Document 10 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until April 16,
2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby
is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.
SIGNED April 2, 2026.
___________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00351-P Document 10 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>