Reyna v. DaVita Inc.
1:25-cv-01028
W.D. Tex.Jul 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Reyna, proceeding pro se and on behalf of his nonprofit Dreams Over Dollars, sued DaVita Inc. alleging racialized medical practices, charitable misrepresentation, and whistleblower suppression and sought declaratory relief, a constructive trust, and "Public-Interest Redress."
- Reyna filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915; the Court evaluated his affidavit and granted IFP status.
- Under the court’s standing order, the magistrate conducted the required § 1915(e)(2) frivolousness review of the complaint.
- The magistrate found the complaint lacked factual support and an arguable legal basis, concluding the claims were insubstantial and that the court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice, ordered service withheld pending district‑court review, and warned Reyna that IFP status is subject to later revocation or imposition of costs and explained objection procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Reyna asserts inability to pay filing fees | No substantive response in the record | Court granted IFP status based on Reyna's affidavit and undue hardship standard |
| Frivolousness / subject‑matter jurisdiction under § 1915(e)(2) | Reyna alleges widespread misconduct by DaVita causing harm to his nonprofit | No substantive defense presented to the magistrate | Complaint deemed insubstantial/frivolous and lacking federal jurisdiction; recommended dismissal without prejudice |
| Service of process | Plaintiff seeks to proceed with suit | Not addressed | Service withheld pending District Court review of R&R |
| Consequences and procedural warnings (costs, objections) | Reyna seeks relief; requests proceeding without fees | Not applicable | Court warned IFP may be revoked and costs imposed later; set 14‑day objection period and explained waiver rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1988) (IFP standard and consideration of undue hardship)
- Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F.4th 566 (5th Cir. 2024) (IFP need not require absolute destitution)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for in forma pauperis dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading failure to state a claim)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (less stringent standard for pro se pleadings)
- Ferguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants not shielded from sanctions for meritless suits)
- Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir. 2019) (insubstantial claims do not confer federal jurisdiction)
- Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (court may impose costs even when IFP status was granted)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards and effect of objections to magistrate reports)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules and waiver for failure to object to magistrate findings)
- Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (district court need not consider frivolous or general objections)