Chan v. Bacdayan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
YU HIN CHAN
VERSUS
KAREN MAY BACDAYAN
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1959
SECTION “R” (3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Yu Hin Chan filed the instant suit against Karen May
Bacdayan, Kevin C. McClanahan, Carmen A. Pacheco, Dawn Hill-Kearse, Wavny
Toussaint, and Re/Max.1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired together and
deprived Plaintiff of due process.2 Plaintiff brough this action under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.3 He seeks one billion dollars in
damages.4
The Court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant
proceeding under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Summons has not issued,
however, to allow the Court to review Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether it
satisfies the requirements of the federal in forma pauperis statute. The Court ordered
that Plaintiff show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
state a claim.5 Plaintiff did not respond to that order. His Complaint does not meet
1 R. Doc. 1 at 1.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 R. Doc. 5.
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
the in forma pauperis requirements.
I. 	Standard of Law
“There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil
matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the
action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116
(5th Cir. 1969). “It is left to the discretion of the court to which the application is
made to determine whether the petition on its face is frivolous or lacking in merit.”
Id.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires summary dismissal sua sponte should the
Court determine that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted. It provides, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that--
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (emphasis added). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact.” Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). A
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it does not
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff’s skeletal allegations are as follows:
1. 	The current owner of the apartment where Plaintiff resides is
Re/Max, as the former owner claimed in his sworn affidavit,
2. 	All defendants conspired together and deprived Plaintiff of due
process[.]
3. 	This Court has jurisdiction under the RICO Act.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings a claim for conspiracy against rights under 18
U.S.C. § 241.6 The statute, however, does not provide Plaintiff with a civil cause of
action. See Gill v. State of Texas, 153 F. App'x 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2005) (“18 U.S.C. §§
241 and 242 do not provide a basis for civil liability.”). Further, “[Plaintiff] has no
standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal
statute.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241 fails for lack of
standing.
Plaintiff also appears to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the conspiracy prong
of the RICO Act.7 “Regardless of subsection, RICO claims under § 1962 have three
common elements: (1) a person who engages in (2) a pattern of racketeering activity,
(3) connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise.”
Abraham v. Singh, 480 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and
6 R. Doc. 1 at 1.
7 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
citations omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no specific factual allegations
relative to the elements of a § 1962 claim. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state any non-
frivolous RICO Act claim. 	Moreover, Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claim
against any defendant.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served
with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc) superseded by statute on other grounds.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11 th day of February, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4