United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
JOSEPH J. TREVINO, (Tarrant No. 0355518) Plaintiff,
STATE OF TEXAS, Et Al. Defendants,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(B) AND 1915(E)(2)(B)
T. PITTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the Court for review of pro-se
inmate/plaintiff Joseph J. Trevino's
(“Trevino”) case under the screening provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Having
reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that this action must
be DISMISSED under authority of these
an inmate at the Tarrant County Jail, completed and filed the
Court's civil-rights complaint form. Complaint, ECF No.1.
He also identifies himself as “Dunaway Green Huette,
” “Sea Dreamer, ” and “De Pour
Haus.” Complaint 4, ECF No.1. Trevino named as
defendants the State of Texas or Killeen Army Base, ESPN and
TNT, Kroger Community Stores, Chicago's Empire Records,
Warner Brothers, and Time Warner. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff contends these defendants are responsible for such
things as (1) the “murder” of his father, sister,
and wife; (2) the break-up of his marriage; (3) the extortion
of his family; and (4) defamation of his character.
Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff requests a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, and “just
compensation.” Id. 4.
LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER §§ 1915A and
Trevino is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis. As a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which requires a district court to review a complaint
from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee as soon as possible after docketing.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a). Because Trevino is
proceeding in-forma-pauperis, his complaint is also subject
to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both §
1915(e)(2) and § 1915A provide for sua sponte
dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof, if it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
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 claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it
describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.”
Id. at 327-28. Courts
may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts
alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing
allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. As
those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
instance, the allegations in Trevino's complaint have
risen to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.
Trevino has included only conclusory statements against the
State of Texas and national companies that are wholly devoid
of any particular facts or any rational basis for how any of
the defendants could be responsible to him. Trevino's
allegations include the following statements as to why he
named each defendant:
Defendant #1: State of Texas or Kileen [sic] Army Base-Murder
of my Father & my sister & my wife. Also captivity of
my Children & Extortion of my family.
Defendant #2: ESPN & TNT movie station may be partially