Hudson v. Navy Federal Credit Union et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
E RNEST H UDSON, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:26-CV-00072
§
N AVY FEDERAL CREDIT U NION, 	§
ET AL., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (ECF 5), filed his original
Complaint in January 2026 alleging claims against Defendants Navy Federal Credit
Union (“Navy Federal”), Capital One Auto Finance (“Capital One”), and Equifax
Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”).1 ECF 1. In March 2026, Plaintiff filed his
First Amended Complaint, which asserts claims only against Defendant Capital One.
ECF 8. In April 2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which asserts
only a single claim against Defendant Capital One. ECF 15. Although Plaintiff filed
the Second Amended Complaint without leave of court, the Court denied Capital
One’s Motion to Strike and deemed the Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff’s
operative pleading. ECF 34.
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 35 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See also Elder v. Bass,
No. 24-30653, 2025 WL 2219005, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) (explaining that the
district court shall consider dismissal sua sponte if plaintiff proceeds in forma
pauperis); Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2016) (“When a party . . .
proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court has the power on its own motion to
dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.”). The power of sua sponte dismissal is
limited by 	the requirement 	that 	plaintiff must have notice of the perceived
inadequacy and the opportunity to respond. Id.
The original Complaint (ECF 1) pleaded facts and claims related to Navy
Federal and Equifax, but the First and Second Amended Complaints (ECF 8; ECF
15) each superseded and nullified all prior complaints. 	See New Orleans Ass'n of
Cemetery Tour Guides & Companies v. New Orleans Archdiocesan Cemeteries, 56
F.4th 1026, 1033 (5th Cir. 2023) (explaining that an amended complaint renders the
prior complaint of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically
incorporates the prior pleading by reference). The Second Amended Complaint does
not allege a claim against Navy Federal2 or Equifax, and by failing to incorporate
2 Navy Federal notes the same issue in its Motion to Dismiss (ECF 30 at 3-4), but that Motion is
not ripe for adjudication.
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 35 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
claims from prior pleadings by reference, Plaintiff abandoned those claims. Amegy
Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Monarch Flight II, LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 441, 449 (S.D. Tex.
2012) (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse compliance with
pleading rules, alter the effect of his amendments, or prevent abandonment of his
claims. 	See, e.g., Raskin on behalf of JD v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 69 F.4th 280,
282 n.1 (5th Cir. 2023) (noting pro se plaintiff’s amended complaint, which omitted
several of her original claims, superseded the original complaint); Trimble v.
Louisiana State Univ. Sys., No. CV 22-351-SDD-RLB, 2023 WL 1808355, at *4
(M.D. La. Jan. 4, 2023) (finding that pro se plaintiff abandoned claims by failing to
include them in amended complaint), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV
22-351-SDD-RLB, 2023 WL 1802405 (M.D. La. Feb. 7, 2023); Rousset v. AT & T
Inc., No. A-14-CV-0843-LY-ML, 2015 WL 1880227, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22,
2015). The filing of two successive amended complaints, both of which abandon all
claims against Navy Federal and Equifax, constitutes abandonment of those claims.
Put differently, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
against Navy Federal or Equifax because it pleads no facts or claims related to either
defendant. ECF 15. 	See also Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 814 F.3d 763,
766 (5th Cir. 2016) (explaining where a party fails to plead any facts in support of a
cause of action it fails to state a claim). 	Neither party is mentioned in the Second
Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff restyled the caption to exclude Navy Federal and
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 35 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
Equifax. ECF 15. See Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, LLC, No. 1:12-CV-325, 2013
WL 12222371, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2013) (dismissing defendant where
plaintiff’s 	complaint pleaded 	no 	facts 	or claims 	against 	defendant 	and 	only
mentioned it once in the complaint). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
against Navy Federal and Equifax, so any claims as to those parties should be
dismissed.
The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal provides Plaintiff with
the required notice and Plaintiff has 14 days to file an objection and explain why the
claims against Navy Federal and Equifax should not be dismissed. See Anokwuru v.
City of Houston, 990 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that plaintiff who
filed objections to magistrate judge's recommendation undoubtedly had notice and
opportunity to respond before dismissal).
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that all claims
against Defendants Navy Federal and Equifax be DISMISSED. The Court further
RECOMMENDS that Defendant Navy Federal’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 30) be
TERMINATED as moot.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 35 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on June 09, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 35 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5