Case: 21-30609 Document: 00516330296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 24, 2022
No. 21-30609
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Robert H. Williams,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
American Commercial Lines, Incorporated; Platinum
Equity, L.L.C.; Platinum Equity Advisors, L.L.C.;
Gordon S. LeBlanc, Jr.; Hermann Moyse, III; ACBL
Transportation Services, L.L.C.; ACL Transportation
Services, L.L.C.; ACL I Corporation; Commercial Barge
Line Company; American Commercial Barge Line, L.L.C.;
American Commercial Lines International, L.L.C.;
ACBL OLDCO, L.L.C.; ACBL River Operations, L.L.C.;
ACL Professional Services, Incorporated; Commercial
Barge Line Holdings, L.L.C.; American Commercial
Barge Line Holding Corporation; American Commercial
Barge Line Company,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:20-CV-139
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-30609 Document: 00516330296 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 21-30609
Per Curiam:*
This suit involves myriad claims by Plaintiff against fifteen entities and
two individuals for alleged racketeering activities. Plaintiff cites various
statutes in his pro se Amended Complaint, such as: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
(Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations); § 1503(a) (obstruction of
justice by influencing or injuring officer or juror); § 1513(e) (obstruction of
justice by retaliating against a witness, victim or an informant); § 1001
(making false statements or entries in a matter within the jurisdiction of the
federal government); § 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before a department
or agency of the United States); § 1343 (wire fraud); and § 1512 (tampering
with a witness, victim or informant in an official proceeding). We, like the
district court, denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. We
interpret the Complaint liberally, but we agree with the district court that
Plaintiff has not satisfied federal jurisdiction: he has pled no facts supporting
either a federal question or complete diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1333 (diversity jurisdiction).
There is an issue, however, with the nature of the district court’s
dismissal. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing this case with
prejudice, either for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a
claim under rule 12(b)(6). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, but made clear that it was dismissing the complaint with
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) provide distinct grounds for dismissal of a
claim for relief. Rule 12(b)(6) applies when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under
rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits and is typically with prejudice,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 21-30609 Document: 00516330296 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 21-30609
meaning the plaintiff is precluded from bringing the same claims again. Rule
12(b)(1), alternatively, applies to claims over which a federal district court
“lack[s] . . . subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dismissal for want of subject-
matter jurisdiction is without prejudice, because a court without jurisdiction
is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims.
See Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020) (“A court’s dismissal
of a case resulting from a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a
determination of the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing
a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction. Accordingly, such a
dismissal should be made without prejudice.” (quotation omitted)).
Where, as here, a rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with a
rule 12(b)(6) motion courts must consider the jurisdictional challenge first.
See Wolcott v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court
did so here, correctly finding jurisdiction lacking. But the district court then
dismissed the action with prejudice, which our caselaw prohibits. 1 E.g.,
Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia, 231 F.3d 994, 1000 (5th Cir.
1
The magistrate judge noted that some district courts have issued dismissals with
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where a plaintiff’s claims are fanciful or
impossible. E.g., Lewis v. Country of Russia, No. 18-CV-124, 2019 WL 2246574, at *n.3
(E.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2225358 (E.D. Tex.
May 23, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s assertions, even when afforded a liberal construction, do not
state a cognizable claim under the law or over which this Court has jurisdiction”); Flores v.
U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 14-CV-198, 2015 WL 1088782, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2015)
(dismissing a case with prejudice after finding no jurisdiction when “plaintiff’s claims
present either a delusional scenario due to some mental incapacity or a poor attempt at
entertaining oneself by filing a frivolous lawsuit”). We express no view on the propriety of
the dismissals in those cases. Instead, we only note that those cases were dismissed under
the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), whereas here the district court denied
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Cf. Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504, 1506 (5th
Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[C]onsidering the distinct features of . . . in forma pauperis
proceedings, . . . dismissals as frivolous or malicious should be deemed to be dismissals with
prejudice[.]”).
3
Case: 21-30609 Document: 00516330296 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 21-30609
2000) (“The district court properly concluded that it did not have
jurisdiction but it erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing with
prejudice. Since the court lacked jurisdiction over the action, it had no power
to render a judgment on the merits.”). We therefore VACATE and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
4