Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-06446
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Preacely v. United States: Judge Torres dismissed Preacely’s amended petition with prejudice and expanded his existing filing injunction.
Woodrow Preacely, whose amended petition was dismissed with prejudice and whose existing filing injunction was expanded to cover removed state court actions; the United States of America and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose dismissal motion was granted.
What happened
In Woodrow Preacely v. United States of America and HUD—Office of Investigations, Preacely, who represented himself, filed an amended petition. The respondents moved to dismiss it.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and expanding an existing filing injunction against Preacely to cover cases removed from state court. Preacely objected, but the court found his objections general, unsupported, or repetitive and did not consider his new evidence.
Judge Torres overruled the objections, adopted the recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the amended petition with prejudice under the pleading rule or, alternatively, the rule for failure to state a claim. She also modified the filing injunction to include removed state court actions.
The detailed version
- Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · No. 1:22-cv-06446
- Analisa Torres
- July 10, 2023
Background
Woodrow Preacely, representing himself, filed an amended petition against the United States of America and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The respondents moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). Judge Torres referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for a report and recommendation.
The opinion states that Preacely began the action in New York state court and that it was later removed to the federal court. It also states that Preacely was already subject to a filing injunction requiring him to obtain the court’s permission before filing an action without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not restate the underlying facts or claims, instead referring to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Objections to the Recommendation
Judge Parker recommended granting the motion to dismiss and modifying the existing filing injunction to include removed state court actions. Preacely objected and accused Judge Parker of bias and improper intent. He also submitted materials he described as new evidence and requested discovery.
Judge Torres concluded that Preacely’s objections were general, conclusory, or repetitions of earlier arguments, so they did not require a fresh review of the challenged portions of the recommendation. The court also declined to consider evidence that could have been submitted to Judge Parker earlier. The court found no clear error in the remainder of the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Torres overruled Preacely’s objections and adopted the recommendation’s conclusions. She granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss. She dismissed the amended petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), or alternatively under Rule 12(b)(6), with prejudice. Rule 8(a) concerns the requirements for stating a claim in a pleading; Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
The court also modified the existing filing injunction against Preacely to include removed state court actions. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, mail the order to Preacely, and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.