Salinas v. Wilson

1 / 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROBERTO SALINAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 2:25-CV-00163
ROBERT WILSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Roberto Salinas, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this federal
lawsuit against defendant Robert Wilson. Wilson is a private citizen of Texas, the owner of
property located next to Plaintiff’s property in Duval County, Texas. See Doc. No. 1, p. 1.
Plaintiff’s case is subject to screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A. Plaintiff’s allegations and requested relief.
Plaintiff alleges that Wilson engaged in “wrongful conduct” “in his capacity as the
property owner adjacent to Plaintiff’s property.” (Doc. No. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges “negligence
in failing to properly demarcate the property lines, resulting trespass and property damage.” Id.
Plaintiff claims that Wilson failed to mark property lines and communicate the property
boundaries to a construction crew, which then cleared some land allegedly owned by Plaintiff.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff also claims that he was arrested by state authorities for “illegal restraint” based
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2 / 6
on “fabricated statements” by Wilson and a Duval County sheriff’s deputy that Plaintiff was
intoxicated. Id. at 2-3.
As causes of action, Plaintiff lists the following:
• “Negligence in Demarcation and Misrepresentation.” Plaintiff claims that Wilson “owed
a duty to clearly demarcate and communicate the boundaries of his property” and that his
failure to abide by that duty resulted in property damages and “incarceration for Mr.
Wilson’s actions and lying to the county officer to escape back to San Antonio, Texas.”
(Doc. No. 1, p. 3.)
• “Wrongful Charges and Defamation of Character.” Plaintiff claims that Wilson made a
false allegation that Plaintiff was intoxicated, resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest for illegal
restraint. This, Plaintiff says, harmed Plaintiff’s reputation and “caused emotional
stress.” Id. at 4.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Wilson was negligent in failing to clearly
demarcate his property boundary. (Doc. No. 1, p. 5.) He also asks for an injunction forbidding
Wilson from “further misrepresenting or allowing any unauthorized entry onto Plaintiff’s
property until appropriate and clear boundary markings are established.” Id. Plaintiff also
requests $150,000 in compensatory damages, as well as costs. Id.; Doc. No. 2, p. 1.
B. Legal standard for screening.
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall evaluate the
complaint and dismiss it without service of process if the court finds the complaint frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing that a court
shall review an in forma pauperis complaint as soon as practicable and dismiss it if it is frivolous
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3 / 6
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from an immune defendant). A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal
interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing
McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)). A claim has no arguable basis in
fact if, “after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary,
the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)).
“In analyzing the complaint, [the court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th
Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “The issue is not whether the plaintiff will
ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim. Thus, the
court should not dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any
set of facts or any possible theory that he could prove consistent with the allegations in the
complaint.” Id. (citing Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996)). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in
support of its legal conclusions that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007)). The factual allegations must raise the plaintiff’s claim for relief above the level of mere
speculation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As long as the complaint, taken as a whole, gives rise to
a plausible inference of actionable conduct, the plaintiff’s claim should not be dismissed. Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4 / 6
Furthermore, as Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court construes his complaint liberally in his favor.
See Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Haines, 404 U.S. at 520).
C. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
A federal court must dismiss an action, even sua sponte, if it determines at any time that
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 497
(5th Cir. 2021). A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if it does not have the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case. See Rivens-Baker v. Collier, No. 2:23-CV-00334,
2025 WL 642927, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2025) (Hampton, M.J.), adopted, 2025 WL 642051
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2025) (citing Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d
1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they possess only the power granted
to them by the Constitution and statute. See Nkadi v. Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-
00474, 2024 WL 4652828, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2024) (Hanen, J.) (citing Home Builders
Ass’n, 143 F.3d at 1010). This Court has original jurisdiction to consider a lawsuit when it is
asked to adjudicate a case or controversy at arises under federal question jurisdiction or diversity
jurisdiction. See id. (citing U.S. Const. art. III § 2; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32). Because of these
limitations, a court must examine the basis for its subject matter jurisdiction, even doing so on its
own if that issue is not raised by the parties in the case. See Union Planters Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.
Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff bears the burden of plausibly alleging a federal controversy – that is, that the
lawsuit arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See Ghedi v.
Mayorkas, 16 F.4th 456, 463 (5th Cir. 2021); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If Plaintiff fails to do so, then
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide his claims. See Ghedi, 16 F.4th at 463.
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5 / 6
Meanwhile, a party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the lawsuit is
between citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); DeAguilar v. Boeing Co.,
11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
There is no federal question jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiff is suing only a private
citizen, and alleges only state law causes of action. See Doc. No. 1, pp. 3-4 (alleging negligence,
“wrongful charges,” and defamation).1 Plaintiff therefore fails to allege facts showing that the
Court has federal question jurisdiction over his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is likewise
no diversity jurisdiction in this case. Even if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and so is Wilson. The lawsuit is not between citizens of different
states, so there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, so dismissal is appropriate.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and ordinarily “a pro se litigant should be offered an
opportunity to amend his complaint before it is dismissed.” Wiggins v. La. State Univ.–Health
Care Servs. Div., 710 F. App’x 625, 627 (5th Cir. 2016); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-
68 (5th Cir. 2009). But leave to amend is not required where amendment would be futile. See
Stem v. Gomez, 813 F.3d 205, 215-16 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, the undersigned recommends denial
of leave to amend: Plaintiff does not raise any viable federal question, and his lawsuit involves
only Texas citizens. Leave to amend would appear to be futile, but the 14-day period for
1 Negligence, as alleged by Plaintiff here, is a state cause of action. So, in this context, are malicious prosecution
and false arrest, which are the nearest apparent analogues to Plaintiff’s claim of “wrongful charges.” See Smith v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02579, 2019 WL 5457798, at *4-*6 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2019) (Hanen, J.).
Plaintiff’s defamation allegation is also a state law claim. See Pete v. Walmart Stores Texas, LLC, No. 1:25-CVB-
000104, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL 1065750 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2025).
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6 / 6
objecting to this memorandum and recommendation (explained below) will allow Plaintiff the
chance to proffer facts, if any, that can cure the jurisdictional deficiencies noted here.
D. Conclusion and recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
E. Notice.
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each
party or counsel. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate
Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 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. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on April 28, 2026.
_____________________________
MITCHEL NEUROCK
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6