Patricia Grant v. Deborah Seabron
689 F. App'x 288
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia A. Grant, a pro se litigant and self-described disabled veteran, sued family members, Texas state agencies and employees, and a private nursing home and staff over her elderly father’s care, asserting federal and state claims.
- The district court granted Grant in forma pauperis status but dismissed her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, Grant generally restated her allegations but did not meaningfully respond to the district court’s grounds for dismissal (standing, sovereign immunity, lack of private right of action, and lack of supplemental jurisdiction), and thus abandoned those issues.
- She argued (liberally construed) that the complaint stated claims under the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against non-immune defendants.
- The appellate court found Grant’s pleadings lacked factual allegations showing discrimination under the ADA or state-action for § 1983 purposes, and that her proposed amended complaint contained only conclusory allegations.
- Because Grant failed to show what additional facts she could plead, the court concluded amendment would be futile and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states an ADA claim | Grant: she is a 100% disabled veteran and was discriminated against | Defendants: no plausible factual allegations of disability-based discrimination | Court: Dismissed — no factual allegations to plausibly show ADA discrimination |
| Whether complaint states a § 1983 claim | Grant: state actors and others violated her constitutional rights | Defendants: family/nursing home defendants are not state actors; state agencies didn’t allege constitutional violations | Court: Dismissed — no facts showing defendants acted under color of state law |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend | Grant: asked to amend to cure defects | Defendants: proposed amendments were conclusory and added no material facts | Court: Denial affirmed — amendment would be futile; plaintiff pleaded her best case |
| Whether issues abandoned on appeal | Grant: reiterated complaint facts but did not address many dismissal bases | Defendants: district court rulings on standing, immunity, private right, supplemental jurisdiction stand | Court: Found many issues abandoned for failure to brief; appellate review limited to argued points |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual enhancement, not mere conclusions)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (ADA covers public services and accommodations)
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (requirement that § 1983 defendants act under color of state law)
- Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492 (leave to amend ordinarily required for pro se plaintiffs unless amendment would be futile)