Frelix v. Hendrie Grant Lending Inc.

Background

Terrelle Lavell Frelix filed a complaint and an application to proceed in federal court without prepaying fees or costs. The complaint appears to challenge Frelix’s eviction. The opinion states that documents attached to the complaint and Minnesota state-court records suggest Hendrie C. Grant owns property where Frelix once lived, and Jared M. Goerlitz represented Grant in an eviction proceeding against Frelix. Frelix appeared to seek monetary damages and “relief of contract” concerning the property.

Frelix asserted federal-question jurisdiction and identified 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and 10 U.S.C. § 921 as the federal laws supporting his claims. The court noted that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Frelix and at least two defendants were Minnesota residents.

Federal claims

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court held that § 241, a federal criminal statute concerning conspiracies against rights, does not provide a private right of action. It likewise held that § 1341, the federal mail-fraud statute, does not provide a private right of action. The court also found that § 921 is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that the complaint did not explain why it applied or created a private right of action.

The court concluded that the federal claims were indisputably meritless and dismissed them with prejudice as frivolous under § 1915. The order specifically applies this disposition to claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and 10 U.S.C. § 921.

State-law claims and final disposition

The court recognized that Minnesota law may provide causes of action for fraud, misrepresentation, and similar claims. But supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—may be declined when all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Applying that rule, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it asserted state-law claims. The court expressly stated that it did not rule on the merits of those state-law claims.

The court also stated that, if it had jurisdiction, it likely would have dismissed the state-law claims because the complaint used conclusory language and relied on the court to develop claims from approximately 90 pages of attachments. The court further stated that the materials appeared to rely on “sovereign citizenship” theories, which it described as legally meritless. These observations were not the basis for the ruling on the state-law claims because the court dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and denied Frelix’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. Judgment was ordered to be entered.