United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this
pro se civil action was referred to the United
States magistrate judge for case management, including the
issuance of findings and a recommended disposition.
Marshall's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
was granted, pending judicial screening. However, upon review
of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this action
should be summarily DISMISSED WITH
November 5, 2019, Marshall filed this pro se civil
action against the United States of America, Members, Aides,
Officers of the Congress for the District of Columbia, and
other, unidentified defendants. Doc. 3 at 1. The complaint is
difficult to decipher, replete with misspellings and
grammatical errors, and plainly nonsensical. As best the
Court can decipher, Marshall complains generally that
Defendants' actions and decisions are unconstitutional
and that they have conspired to falsify records and abused
their power. Doc. 3 at 1. For example, in rambling fashion he
references Defendant's alleged concealment from the
public of “Neferious Acts and Decisions, Collision
under Land Allotment and Minerals, Commissions, Declarations
. . .” and the falsification of “Petitioners
Family and Others public and private records, not limited to
birth and death records.” Doc. 3 at 1 (misspelling and
grammatical errors in original).
Marshall is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), which 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.
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 the most deferential view,
Marshall's complaint is facially frivolous.
Marshall's factual contentions are clearly baseless and
woefully inadequate to support any cognizable claim,
see Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, and his
allegations appear irrational and incredible. Accordingly,
Marshall's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice
LEAVE TO AMEND
a pro plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his
complaint prior to dismissal. However, leave to amend is not
required when the plaintiff “has already pleaded his
‘best case.'” Brewster v. Dretke,
587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed here,
Marshall's pleadings are fatally infirm. Based on the
most deferential review of his complaint, it is highly
unlikely that, even if 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.
foregoing reasons, this action should be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. See28 U.S.C.
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
of this report and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the
objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to
the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds ...