Seals v. Itex Group LLC, 1:22-cv-00383

Plaintiffs J.W. Seals, Jr., Vergie Seals, and Marie L. Page sought a preliminary injunction related to conditions at an apartment complex.
The assigned magistrate judge recommended denying the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs no longer lived at or visited the complex (mootness) and because pro se plaintiffs cannot represent others.
Plaintiffs objected, arguing constructive eviction, that the harm could recur (repetition), and that they sought relief for systemic, public‑benefit reasons affecting other tenants.
The district court reviewed the R&R de novo, found the objections legally insufficient and non‑specific in parts, and overruled them.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied the motion for preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive relief	Injunctive relief not moot: constructive eviction and risk the conduct will recur	Moot because plaintiffs no longer reside at or visit the property; mootness here arises from plaintiffs’ actions, not defendant’s voluntary cessation	Injunctive relief is moot; motion denied
Pro se representation / relief for others	Plaintiffs seek injunction for "public benefit" and to address systemic unlawful conduct affecting other units	A pro se litigant cannot represent or bring claims on behalf of others or serve as a class representative	Pro se plaintiffs cannot represent others; claims seeking relief for third parties dismissed for that reason

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc) (standards for frivolous, general, or conclusory objections)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (procedural context for objections to magistrate reports)
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001) (mootness where plaintiffs no longer reside at challenged property)
Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1991) (mootness doctrine applied when plaintiffs no longer subject to the challenged conditions)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and repetition‑of‑conduct doctrine)
Ibe v. Jones, 836 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2016) (pro se litigants cannot adequately represent others)
DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (pro se litigant not an adequate class representative)
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000) (pro se may litigate only personal claims)