Simmons v. Jackson
3:15-cv-01700
N.D. Tex.Jul 19, 2017Background
- Simmons, a former Methodist Hospital of Dallas resident whose Texas medical license was revoked after proceedings by the Texas Medical Board (TMB), sued pro se asserting RICO, § 1983 and § 1985 conspiracy, and breach-of-contract claims arising from his 2010 termination and subsequent proceedings.
- Prior related litigation: Simmons previously sued Methodist (summary judgment for Methodist) and was represented by attorneys Ray Jackson and later Oscar San Miguel in TMB proceedings; Simmons later sued his former counsel Jackson and joined Methodist, TMB, and Jordan in this action.
- The court ordered a narrowed, 20-page, 12-point, double-spaced fourth amended complaint; Simmons filed that complaint alleging an enterprise, pattern of racketeering (mail/wire fraud), conspiracies to deprive constitutional and equal-protection rights, and multiple contract breaches in May–July 2010.
- Methodist moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); TMB moved under Rule 12(b)(1) and (5) asserting sovereign immunity. Simmons sought leave to file a surreply and a motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court dismissed with prejudice Simmons’ RICO conspiracy and civil conspiracy (§ 1983 and § 1985) claims against Methodist for failure to plead predicate acts and agreement with requisite particularity or plausibility, dismissed his contract claims as time-barred and not equitably tolled, and dismissed claims against TMB for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of RICO conspiracy pleadings (pattern of racketeering) | Simmons: incorporated prior filings and alleges mail/wire fraud and coordinated acts over time establishing relatedness and continuity | Methodist: allegations are conclusory, lack particularity as to predicate acts by Methodist, and lack continuity; incorporation of prior lengthy filings unacceptable without specific references | Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiff failed to plead predicate acts with particularity or continuity; court refused to hunt through prior filings for incorporated allegations |
| § 1983 civil conspiracy (agreement with state actor) | Simmons: Methodist provided fabricated affidavits and joined scheme with TMB/Jordan to sanction him; liability from general agreement to further objectives | Methodist: no factual allegations showing an agreement with public defendants; conclusory labels insufficient | Dismissed with prejudice — no specific factual allegations of an agreement between Methodist and public defendants |
| § 1985 equal-protection conspiracy (racial animus) | Simmons: he was the only terminated resident, is African-American, and alleges race-based animus plus coordinated filings and actions | Methodist: lacks allegations that Methodist knew of or agreed to illegal acts; allegations are conclusory | Dismissed with prejudice — insufficient factual pleading of agreement and racial animus supporting § 1985 claim |
| Breach of contract statute of limitations | Simmons: limitations tolled by counsel’s alleged malpractice (Jackson) | Methodist: alleged breaches occurred May–July 2010; four-year Texas limitations bar claims filed in 2016 | Dismissed — contract claims time-barred on face of complaint; equitable tolling not plausibly pleaded because attorney negligence alone insufficient |
| Sovereign immunity of TMB | Simmons: asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; contends § 1983/§ 1985/RICO claims give jurisdiction and alleges policy/custom by TMB | TMB: is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; Texas has not waived consent and Congress has not abrogated immunity for these claims | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Eleventh Amendment bars suit against TMB; supplemental-jurisdiction and other arguments insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockman v. Federal Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir.) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(1) facial challenge standard)
- Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden of proving jurisdiction)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (pattern requires relatedness and continuity)
- In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d 733 (5th Cir.) (predicate acts tied to concluded legal proceedings may lack continuity)
- Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir.) (mail fraud pleadings require time, place, contents, and identity of false representation)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and state agencies generally immune from suit under § 1983)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies without consent)