Loeber v. Alghusain

Background

Carlton Bryan Loeber represented himself. He sued Ameer Alghusain, AMIDAC, American Railways LLC, and General Railways LLC. Loeber and Alghusain consented to a magistrate judge handling the case, but the court explained that consent from all named parties—including defendants who had not been served—was required. The case was therefore reassigned to Judge Donato.

Claims and dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint on its own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

The first claim, under the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2314, was dismissed with prejudice because it is a criminal statute that does not create a private right to sue. The second claim, under the federal wire-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, was also dismissed with prejudice for the same reason.

The third claim alleged civil racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and §§ 1964(a) and (c). The court dismissed that claim with leave to amend. It said the complaint did not plausibly allege the required elements, including two distinct entities—a person and an enterprise—and an injury caused by the alleged racketeering. Because the allegations relied on fraud, the court also required the complaint to provide the details demanded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court allowed Loeber to file an amended complaint on the civil RICO claim by August 30, 2021. It prohibited new claims or parties without prior court approval and stated that failing to meet the deadline or condition would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Alghusain’s motion to dismiss was terminated as moot.

Request for appointed counsel

Loeber requested appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court denied the request. It said the record did not clearly establish that Loeber was indigent because he reported Social Security and Veterans benefits and seasonal work. The court also found no exceptional circumstances: although the complaint was not plausible as pleaded, Loeber had shown that he could explain his claims, and the record did not show a serious disability affecting that ability. The court further stated that, because the complaint lacked a plausible claim, Loeber’s likelihood of success was presently low.

Service instructions

The court stated that, if Loeber timely amended the complaint, he had to serve all named defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, including its service deadlines. After all defendants were served, the court would file forms concerning consent or refusal of magistrate-judge jurisdiction.