Arnold v. Hoskins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTO 	DIVISION
STORMI MABRY ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
VS .
ROBERT HOSKINS, II, et al. ,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-06305
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Defendants Robert Hoskins II and Hong Nguyen Hoskins ' s
(collectively, "Defendants") Rule 12(b)( 6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff Stormi Mabry
Arnold ("Arnold"), proceeding prose , failed to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss and failed
to appear for the Initial Conference before Magistrate Judge Richard Bennett. (Doc. No. 11).
Nevertheless, the Court addresses the pending Motion.
A defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)( 6) , a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. "
Bell At!. 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. 662,663 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-
pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co ., 509 F.3d 673 , 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06305 Document 13 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

bound to accept factual assumptions or legal conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states
a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S . at 678-79.
On December 29 , 2025, Arnold filed a largely handwritten "Employment Discrimination
Complaint" against the Defendants. (Doc. No. 1). Though the Complaint is difficult to decipher,
Arnold describes an incident related to a real estate transaction and "title fraud"- 	not an
employment discrimination case. (Id.). Generally, Arnold complains that while she had filed for
bankruptc y, her mortgage loan was mishandled and the bank foreclosed on her property. (Id.).
Arnold does not allege that she was employed by the Defendants, nor does she allege that she
discriminated against, in any way, by the Defendants. (Id.). Even more broadly, Arnold does not
allege any facts that connect the Defendants to the alleged real estate transaction. (Id.). Other than
the label of an "Employment Discrimination Complaint," Arnold does not assert any causes of
action. (Id.).
The Court finds that after accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts
in the light mo st favorable to Arnold, this Complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) . This case is
hereby dismissed without prejudice. This is a final judgment.
It is so ordered.
) L
Signed on this the __fJ__ day of May 2026 .
• 	~lbAndrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:25-cv-06305 Document 13 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2