4:25-cv-04847•Sparta v. The Reece Group
Texto completo
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 17, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document 9 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4
Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document 9 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4
Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document 9 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4
Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document 9 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document9 _ Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4 United States District Court Southem District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 17, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION RICHARD DALE SPARTA, JAIL #285748, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-4847 THE REECE GROUP, MMMM iO Mm wm wi Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Richard Dale Sparta (Jail #285748) filed this prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while in custody of the Montgomery County Jail. He alleges that The Reece Group, a plumbing company, wrongfully charged him for services he did not receive. Doc. No. 1. The Court has considered the pleadings and concludes that this case must be dismissed for the reasons that follow. I. Legal Standard Because Sparta is a prisoner who proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”) to scrutinize the complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document9_ Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD — Page 2 of 4 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B). II. Discussion To state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must “allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254-55 (1988). The defendant must be a “person who may fairly be said to be a state actor,” that is, one who is in fact a state official, one who “has acted with or has obtained significant aid from state officials,” or one whose “conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmundson Oil Co., 102 S. Ct. 2744, 2753 (1982); see also Hernandez v. Maxwell, 905 F.2d 94, 95 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Daniel v. Ferguson, 839 F.2d 1124, 1128 (5th Cir. 1998)). Sparta alleges that The Reece Group used a stolen credit card to charge him $3092.44 for services that he did not receive. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. He identifies The Reece Group as a plumbing company based on Dallas, Texas. Id. at 2. There is no allegation or indication that The Reece Group is a state actor acting under the color of law or that its actions can reasonably be charged to the state. Therefore, Sparta fails to state a viable claim under 42 Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document9_ Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4 U.S.C. § 1983 against The Reece Group, and that claim must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1). To the extent that Sparta has alleged a state law tort action for conversion of his funds against the defendant, he has not established that complete diversity of citizenship exists between such parties that would confer upon this federal court jurisdiction over that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In addition, the amount in controversy is less than that required to sustain a diversity action even if diversity of citizenship existed between the parties. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where all federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3). Accordingly, Sparta’s state law claim, if any, will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Such a claim may be pursued in state court. III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted; it is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s state law claim, if any, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and it is Case 4:25-cv-04847 Document9_ Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4 ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court will send a copy of this Order to the parties. i SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this pe o MoV, 2025. WERLEIN, JR. UNITED S
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.