Flickinger v. Jaqueline Reyes Castillo

Background

Jason Archie Flickinger, who was representing himself, sued numerous defendants. The allegations arose from his marriage to Jaqueline Reyes Castillo and subsequent events involving alleged fraud, intimidation, and extortion. The order concerned three motions: the motion to dismiss filed by the Fiscalia General del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza (the “Coahuila AG”) and the Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza (the “State of Coahuila”), together called the “Coahuila State Defendants”; Flickinger’s motion for jurisdictional discovery; and the Coahuila State Defendants’ motion to stay discovery.

In an earlier round of this case, the court held that the Coahuila State Defendants were entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), subject to Flickinger’s opportunity to amend allegations concerning the waiver and commercial-activity exceptions. Flickinger filed a second amended complaint with additional allegations about the relationship between the State of Coahuila, the Coahuila AG, the Centro de Justicia y Empoderamiento para Las Mujeres del Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza (the “CJEM”), Roberto Magaña, and Erik Huitrón.

Foreign Sovereign Immunity

The FSIA generally protects a foreign state from the jurisdiction of United States courts unless a statutory exception applies. The court treated the State of Coahuila and the Coahuila AG as foreign states under the FSIA. Flickinger stated that he was no longer pursuing the waiver exception.

The court also rejected the commercial-activity exception. That exception can permit a lawsuit based on certain commercial conduct connected to the United States. Flickinger alleged commercial activity involving Roberto Magaña’s legal work and Erik Huitrón’s work on a marital contract and the attempted presale of Flickinger’s home. But the court held that Flickinger had not alleged the day-to-day, routine involvement by the State of Coahuila or the Coahuila AG needed to attribute those activities to those defendants. The court found that allegations involving the CJEM did not establish the required involvement by the State of Coahuila or the Coahuila AG, and that allegations about Huitrón’s political connections did not show that the State of Coahuila was involved in his commercial activities.

The court also rejected reliance on the FSIA’s noncommercial-tort exception. It explained that Flickinger had misunderstood the court’s earlier discussion: the earlier order had stated that, even if the exception otherwise applied, an exclusion for claims arising from malicious prosecution or abuse of process would preserve the defendants’ immunity for the specific conduct at issue. The court concluded that Flickinger’s amendments under this exception were improper and that the exception did not apply.

Because no FSIA exception applied, the court dismissed the claims against the Coahuila State Defendants for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the FSIA. The court did not reach the defendants’ remaining arguments.

Leave to Amend

The court denied further leave to amend. It had already allowed Flickinger to amend his allegations concerning the required involvement in Magaña’s and Huitrón’s commercial activities. Although the second amended complaint added extensive detail, the court found that Flickinger still had not tied those activities directly to the Coahuila State Defendants. The court therefore found that further amendment would be futile and granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Discovery Stay

Flickinger sought jurisdictional discovery about subjects including the collaboration between CJEM agents and Magaña, whether particular individuals were CJEM or Coahuila AG agents, and whether the Coahuila AG received money that Flickinger alleged had been paid to Magaña. The court denied the request because the proposed discovery was directed, at most, to whether the CJEM was entitled to immunity, rather than to facts critical to deciding the immunity of the State of Coahuila and the Coahuila AG.

Because the court denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed the claims against the Coahuila State Defendants, it denied their motion to stay discovery as moot.

Disposition and Case Management

The court granted the Coahuila State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against them without leave to amend. It denied Flickinger’s motion for jurisdictional discovery and denied as moot the Coahuila State Defendants’ motion to stay discovery.

The order stated that 37 defendants remained after the State of Coahuila and the Coahuila AG were dismissed; three other former defendants had previously been dismissed. The court ordered Flickinger to pursue default requests against certain served defendants by September 23, 2026, to renew alternative-service requests or dismiss certain unserved defendants without prejudice within the stated deadline after defaults were entered, and to file a status report concerning service on six defendants added to the second amended complaint by September 16, 2026. The court continued the case-management conference to November 3, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.