1:22-cv-01263
W.D. Tex.Feb 5, 2024Background
- Heather Godwin, a licensed Texas attorney, filed a pro se federal suit against 21 defendants alleging sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591), civil RICO, and, against some, negligence, based on incidents spanning over 30 years.
- Her claims assert a conspiracy beginning in 1989 involving her father, former fiancé, and others, to defraud her into commercial sex acts and to surveil her across numerous residencies and business premises.
- Defendant pool includes family members, landlords, attorneys, acquaintances, businesses, and a California rehabilitation facility.
- The complaint is characterized by conclusory allegations and lacks specific, plausible factual support for the alleged wrongful acts, especially regarding knowledge, intent, and participation by each defendant.
- Numerous motions to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and summary judgment) were filed; Godwin amended her complaint multiple times but failed to cure deficiencies.
- The court addressed lack of service, dismissed unserved defendants, denied leave for further amendment, and warned Godwin against future frivolous litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over A Mission for Michael | Facility committed acts in violation of law | No purposeful contact with Texas | No personal jurisdiction; claims dismissed |
| Sufficiency of § 1591 & Civil RICO (12(b)(6)) | Defendants knowingly sex-trafficked/plotted | Allegations are conclusory and implausible | No plausible claim; dismissed with prejudice |
| Negligence (as to landlords and attorneys) | Defendants owed/violated duty to Plaintiff | No duty or wrong-doing sufficiently alleged | No claim stated; dismissed with prejudice |
| Frivolousness of claims against specific defendants | Repeats core conspiratorial allegations | Claims are fantastic, attenuated, not plausible | Dismissed sua sponte as frivolous |
| Summary judgment for Habitat Suites | Asserted presence of surveillance/pornography | No evidence, physical impossibility, affidavit | Summary judgment granted for Habitat |
| Leave to amend | Sought to add facts/defendants, bolster RICO | Repeated failure to cure, futility, prejudice | Leave denied (futility) |
| Motion for sanctions against Teckenbrock | Claimed bad faith by defendant’s attorney | Proper defense, no bad faith or grounds shown | Sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility and sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (factual allegations required to state claim to relief above speculative level)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment: genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (standard for general personal jurisdiction)
- Dilworth v. Dallas Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 81 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1996) (court authority to dismiss frivolous claims)
- Rodriguez-Escobar v. Goss, 392 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 2013) (Texas elements of negligence)