Was the petitioner's federal rights violated when Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002) held that a plaintiff does not need to plead specific facts to establish a prima facie case in a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?

QUESTION PRESENTED Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a (Rule 91a) Dismissal of Baseless Cause of Action, became effective March 1, 2013, and suppose to be similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); however, there are some key differences including, but not limited to, is the Texas Rule 91a violates the Supremacy Clause and is preempted because it is contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, in | Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002). Rule 91a2 Contents of Motion, “a motion to dismiss must state that it is made pursuant to this rule, must identify each cause of action to which it is addressed, and must state specifically the reason the cause of action has not basis in law, no basis in fact, or both”. The question presented is: The petitioner's federal cause of action, 42 USC 1981 and 1982, was dismissed under Rule 91a, for failing to plead specific facts. Was the petitioner's federal rights violated when, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002), "a plaintiff does not need to plead specific facts to establish a prima facie case in a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim"? 2