Frelix v. Hendrie Grant Lending Inc., 0:23-cv-00896

Plaintiff Terrelle Lavell Frelix filed suit contesting an eviction, naming Hendrie Grant Lending Inc., Hendrie C. Grant, and attorney Jared M. Goerlitz, and sought monetary relief and contract relief relating to the property.
Frelix filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP); the financial record indicated he qualified for IFP treatment.
The Complaint invoked federal statutes (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and 10 U.S.C. § 921) as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction and attached roughly 90 pages of documents rather than pleading coherent allegations.
The Court found those statutes do not confer private civil causes of action (and the 10 U.S.C. provision is a military statute), concluding the federal claims were legally frivolous.
The Court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); it declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Because the case was dismissed, the Court denied the IFP application as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists based on statutes cited	Frelix invoked 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and 10 U.S.C. § 921 as federal-law bases	These statutes do not create private civil causes of action	Federal claims dismissed as frivolous and barred; no federal jurisdiction (dismissed with prejudice)
Whether cited criminal/military statutes provide private causes of action	Frelix relied on those statutes to bring civil claims	Statutes are criminal/military and do not confer private rights	Court held no private right exists; claims meritless/frivolous
Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	Frelix implicitly sought relief under state-law theories (fraud, misrepresentation)	N/A (court assessed §1367 factors)	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice
IFP application effect given dismissal	Frelix sought to proceed IFP	N/A	IFP application denied as moot after dismissal

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2002) (applies Neitzke standard in the Eighth Circuit)
Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1992) (indisputably meritless legal-theory standard)
United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998) (no private civil right under 18 U.S.C. § 241)
Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 1999) (no private civil action under the mail-fraud statute)
McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2020) (declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims)
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (complete diversity required for § 1332 jurisdiction)