Alexander v. Hill-Kearse et al

1/4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-075
§
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, and
SERGIO JIMENEZ,
§
§
Defendants. §
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Alexander’s “Complaint for a Civil Case”
(“Complaint”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the
Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Alexander’s Complaint; and (2)
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
On January 27, 2026, Alexander, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced this action by filing his Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. There, he merely states that
“Defendants conspired together and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in
violation of due process” and “demands compensation of $500,000” as relief. Id.
1 Information obtained from Alexander’s Complaint. See Dkt. No. 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00075 Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2/4
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
The Court may dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint filed in forma pauperis if, at any
time, the Court determines that the action is: (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Amrhein v. United States,
740 Fed.Appx. 65, 66 (5th Cir. 2018).
A complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim must be facially
plausible and “plead 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).
“Before dismissing a pro se litigant’s case for failure to state a claim, a district court
ordinarily must give the litigant an opportunity to amend his complaint to remedy the
deficiencies.” Graves v. Cain, 734 Fed.Appx. 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Eason v.
Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994)). The report and recommendation of a United States
Magistrate Judge provides sufficient notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss, and the 14-day
objections period provides time for a response. Alexander v. Trump, 753 Fed.Appx. 201,
208 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998)).
A pleading by a pro se litigant is liberally construed under a less stringent standard
of review than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Nevertheless, a pro se filing must still “abide by the rules that govern the federal
courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Frazier v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 541 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir. 2013)). If a claim lacks “an
arguable basis either in law or fact,” then, a court can dismiss a claim as frivolous. Hicks
Case 1:26-cv-00075 Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3/4
v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827,
1831–32 (1989)).
III. DISCUSSION
Even under a liberal standard, Alexander’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Alexander’s nearly bare Complaint2 contains no facts as to
what Defendants have allegedly done, or how. See Dkt. No. 1. In his Complaint, Alexander
only states that the “basis for this court’s jurisdiction is federal law;” critically, he cites to
no federal statute, constitutional provision, or treaty. Id. It is not clear from the Complaint
that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
the Defendants, or that venue is proper in this Court. Without more, the Court has no
choice but to recommend dismissal of Alexander’s Complaint as it fails to set forth any
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Alexander’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]; and (2) DIRECT the
Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
2 The Court notes that Alexander has filed almost identical, frivolous complaints in the Eastern District of
Tennessee (2:26-CV-20) and Southern District of Indiana (1:26-CV-163).
Case 1:26-cv-00075 Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4/4
V. NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
SIGNED on this 10th day of April, 2026, at Brownsville, Texas.
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00075 Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4