Garces v. Rossbach
5:25-cv-00441
| W.D. Tex. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- Matthew Andrew Garces, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against Andy Rossbach, Rossbach Construction, and 523 RE LLC, alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Garces alleged that the defendants, the property managers of his apartment, discriminated against him and failed to accommodate his disability.
- Plaintiff has a history of filing numerous lawsuits in the San Antonio Division (over 14 cases in the current year), many of which have been dismissed as frivolous.
- The original complaint was found insufficient; the Court issued a Show Cause Order permitting Garces to amend his complaint to address deficiencies.
- After amendment, Garces submitted a new complaint and extensive attachments, but failed to allege that defendants knew of his disability or refused accommodation on that basis.
- The Court also considered whether Garces should be designated a vexatious litigant and subjected to a pre-filing injunction due to his pattern of abusive filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of FHA/ADA discrimination | Defendants discriminated against him and denied accommodations | Not specified (motion on pleadings) | Complaint fails to state a claim; dismissed |
| Knowledge of Disability | Defendants either knew or should have known of disability | Not specified | No facts alleged to show defendants' knowledge |
| Leave to Amend | Amended to cure deficiencies with exhibits | N/A | Amended filing insufficient; no further leave given |
| Vexatious Litigant Injunction | N/A | N/A | Plaintiff to be enjoined from filing without leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible factual grounds for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction for pro se pleadings, but some factual basis needed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (pro se litigant must be given opportunity to amend if possible)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to object to magistrate's report precludes de novo review)
- Farguson v. MBank Hous., N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (vexatious litigant sanctions must preserve court access)