Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vickers v. Georay

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 9, 2019

Jamal Vickers, Plaintiff,
v.
Doctor Georay, Defendant.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for judicial screening. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but did not issue process. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this case should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff Jamal Vickers filed a pro se Complaint against Doctor Georay. Doc. 3 at 1. The complaint is difficult to decipher, replete with misspellings and grammatical errors, and plainly nonsensical. In it he states, “I am here to the attoritiy of secirtey . . . to present to the courst a action of . . . falseoffcation . . . .” Doc. 3 at 1. Vickers further avers that Georay “intennly file a 20392001 by falseafly the office of Lamar Distrit Courts penele code 319862019466 section 2 on the behave on a major crime . . . .” Doc. 3 at 1.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous when it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are “clearly ‘baseless.'” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The latter category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” scenarios, or that “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 33.

         The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction, however, Vickers' apparent claims are legally and factually frivolous.

         Vickers' claims lack an arguable basis in law, and he has presented no supporting legal authority for the claims he asserts. Moreover, his factual contentions are clearly baseless and woefully inadequate to support any cognizable claim. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Finally, his allegations appear irrational and incredible. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

         III. LEAVE TO AMEND

         Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint prior to dismissal. However, leave to amend is not required when plaintiff “has already pleaded his ‘best case.'” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed herein, Vickers' apparent claims are fatally infirm. Based on the most deferential review of his complaint, it is highly unlikely that, given the opportunity, he could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and cause needless delay.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, this action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         SO RECOMMENDED

         INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.