Jefferson v. Sam's East, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Club
6:24-cv-00324
E.D. Tex.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jrmar Jefferson, proceeding pro se, sued Sam’s East, Inc. (Sam’s Club) and others, alleging federal and state law claims arising from an incident at a Sam’s Club gas station.
- Jefferson claimed he was either falsely accused of theft and unlawfully detained while shopping, or that he was distributing campaign literature at the gas station — his complaints were inconsistent across amendments.
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who recommended dismissal of all claims: federal claims for failure to state a claim with prejudice, state law claims for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.
- Jefferson objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, including issues with denial of amendment, application of statute of limitations, handling of Monell and constitutional claims, and the Magistrate referral process.
- The District Court conducted de novo review of objected issues and reviewed other matters for clear error, as required by law.
- On June 13, 2025, the Court overruled all objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Leave to Amend | Denial was improper; sought to introduce new facts (e.g., handing out literature) | Amendment futile; new facts unrelated to original complaint, untimely | Denial of leave proper; amendment futile and untimely |
| Monell Liability | Intended to plead municipal liability | No official policy alleged; insufficient pleading | Claim insufficiently pleaded; dismissed |
| Equal Protection Claim | Alleged racial animus ("because he is black") | No such allegation in operative complaint; no similarly situated comparators pleaded | No discriminatory intent or comparator pleaded; claim dismissed |
| Statute of Limitations | Defendants waived the argument | Defense maintained in record, Plaintiff had notice | No waiver; limitations bar some claims |
| First Amendment Claim | Gas station was quasi-public; Sam’s Club a state actor | Sam’s Club is private; no state action | Sam’s gas station private; no First Amendment claim |
| Malicious Prosecution | Objected to ambiguity in Magistrate’s analysis | No criminal proceeding alleged | No claim stated; dismissed |
| Referral to Magistrate Judge | No consent to Magistrate involvement | Statutory and standard court practice; no party consent required | No consent required for non-dispositive referrals |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard of de novo review for objections to magistrate recommendations)
- Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (private property open to the public does not become public for First Amendment purposes)
- Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019) (private entities generally not subject to First Amendment constraints)
- Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972) (use of state services does not convert private entity to state actor)
- Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2012) (equal protection claim requires differential treatment of similarly situated individuals)
- Armstrong v. Ashley, 60 F.4th 262 (5th Cir. 2023) (malicious prosecution claim requires underlying criminal proceeding)
- Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989) (no party consent required for § 636(b)(1) referral to magistrate)