United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Vicki Fanning McLean (“McLean”) filed her
complaint in this case on June 10, 2019. (Dkt. 1). McLean is
not a prisoner and she is not proceeding in forma
pauperis. The screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 and 1915A therefore do not apply.
Nevertheless, district courts have the inherent authority to
screen a pleading for frivolousness and may dismiss sua
sponte claims that are “totally implausible,
attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no
longer open to discussion” because such claims lack
“the “legal plausibility necessary to invoke
federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479-80 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)
(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37
(1974); Dilworth v. Dallas Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.,
81 F.3d 616, 617 (5th Cir. 1996)). This inherent power
applies even with respect to complaints in which the
plaintiff is not a prisoner and has paid a filing fee.
Black v. Hornsby, No. 5:14-CV-0822, 2014 WL 2535168,
at *3 (W.D. La. May 15, 2014), subsequently aff'd sub
nom. Black v. Hathaway, 616 Fed.Appx. 650 (5th
124-page complaint (564 pages with exhibits) is fantastical
and completely frivolous. The list of defendants McLean names
spans 11 pages and includes “Mexico, Country of, 1917
to Present, ” the current president and several former
presidents of Mexico, current and former elected
representatives of several states, professional sports
leagues such as the National Basketball Association and
National Football League, federal judges of Latino or
Hispanic descent, and Latino and Hispanic celebrities and
athletes such as “Jennifer Lopez Puerto Rican Known as
JLo Celebrity” and “Alexander Rodriguez Dominican
Former New York Yankees Player.” (Dkt. 1, at 1-11).
purports to bring claims against these Defendants under 17
federal statutes. (Id. at 1-2). She alleges that
Defendants are “allowing massive numbers of Mexican
Citizens and falsely documented Mexican U.S. Citizens . . .
to invade the United States to aid the U.S. Federal Reserve
Shareholders to control and overtake the legitimate U.S.
Government and U.S. Citizens established under the U.S.
Constitution attacking them both financially and physically
daily inside the United States on U.S. domestic soil.”
(Id. at 14). She further alleges that:
Due to [several Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]
cases being active with active investigations specifically
addressing the yearly massive theft of U.S. funds by the
Federal Reserve Shareholders back till 1913 there exists a
much greater threat from immigrants, legal and illegal living
inside the United State, to rise up and revolt against the
U.S. Citizens in the border States and Coastal States while
enabling the mass movement of foreign troops from the Mexican
border falsely claiming asylum and refugee status, from
overseas from China by way of cruise ships, and from Russia
by way of illegal international underground subways to
overtake the United States and the United States Citizens for
the Federal Reserve Shareholders planned massive United
(Id. at 12).
relief, McLean requests, in part, (1) that the Mexican
Government be “liable for all terrorist attacks caused
by the Mexican citizens” because “Mexican
Citizens [are] the dominant immigrants working inside and
with the illegal Harvard Mind Control Headquarters to carry
out the mass shootings and terrorist attacks inside the
United States”; (2) that “immigrants” be
prohibited from “protest[ing] in or out of court”
the construction of the “U.S. Mexico Border Wall”
because such protests “can only be addressed by
immigrants and citizens of Mexico in an international
court”; and (3) that the Mexican Government be ordered
to change its “visa policies” and be required to
“man[ ] the border with massive numbers of Mexican
border agents with military support.” (Id. at
119-21). McLean ends by stating that “Mexican citizens
inside the United States” holding “top U.S. and
State governmental positions” “are thieves and
killers, ” requesting that the Court “deport[ ]
them permanently” and “deem the Mexican Citizens
inside the United States as an enemy [sic] of the
State”; and urging the Court “to be obedient
to” scripture from the Torah to “move swiftly to
get revenge and retribution from the government of Mexico and
the Mexico Citizens living in the United States or expected
[sic] to be cursed by the God of Israel once again for 70
years down to 4 generations for not swiftly getting revenge
and retribution for the real authentic U.S. Citizens.”
(Id. at 122-24).
Court finds that all of McLean's claims are totally
frivolous. The Court will therefore invoke its inherent
authority to dismiss this action with prejudice. As stated by
the Fifth Circuit:
Federal courts are proper forums for the resolution of
serious and substantial federal claims. They are frequently
the last, and sometimes the only, resort for those who are
oppressed by the denial of the rights given them by the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Fulfilling this
mission and the other jurisdiction conferred by acts of
Congress has imposed on the federal courts a work load that
taxes their capacity. Each litigant who improperly seeks
federal judicial relief for a petty claim forces other
litigants with more serious claims to await a day in court.
When litigants improperly invoke the aid of a federal court
to redress what is patently a trifling claim, the district
court should not attempt to ascertain who was right or who
was wrong in provoking the quarrel but should dispatch the
Dilworth, 81 F.3d at 617 (quoting Raymon v.
Alvord Indep. Sch. Dist., 639 F.2d 257, 257 (5th Cir.
1981)). This reasoning is applicable in cases such as this
the Court also notes that this is McLean's second case
dismissed sua sponte as totally frivolous. (See
McLean v. State of Texas Secretary of Election Division, et
al., 1:18-CV-1021-RP (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 2). Courts
possess the inherent authority “to protect the
efficient and orderly administration of justice, ”
including “the power to levy sanctions in response to
abusive litigation practices.” In re Stone,
986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993). Sanctions may be
appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of
submitting multiple frivolous claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;
Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir.
1993). Thus, if McLean continues to file meritless suits, the
Court will consider the imposition of sanctions. Such
sanctions may include an injunction barring her from filing
any future actions in the Western District of Texas without
leave of court, as well as monetary sanctions. Finally,
McLean could be prohibited from filing any new lawsuits until
all sanctions levied against her are paid in full.
for the reasons given above, the Court
ORDERS that McLean's complaint is