Opinion
1:24-CV-124-DAE
02-14-2024
CARLINE S. BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, FEDERAL AGNECY, ROBERT PITMAN, DUSTIN M. HOWELL, DERRELL DULLNIG, ANDY BROWN, KATE GARZA, ELIZABETH MEDINA, EMMA HILBERT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT, MARIA CANTU HEXSEL, RHONDA HURLEY, AURORA MARTINEZ JONES, JESSICA MANGRUM, AMY CLARK MEACHUM, KARIM CRUMP, DANIELLA DESETA LYTTLE, JAN SOIFER, MADELEINE CONNOR, CATHERINE A. MAUZY, LAURIE EISERLOH, MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, CLIFF BROWN, DAYNA BLAZEY, KAREN SAGE, BRANDY MUELLER, JULIE KOCUREK, TAMARA NEEDLES, BRAD URRUTIA, SELENA ALVARENGA, LEON GRIZZARD, KIRK WATSON, JOSE CHITO VELA, RYAN ALTER, STEVE ADLER, MACKENZIE KELLY, LESLIE POOLE, ZAHAIB QADN, ALISON ALTER, VANESSA FUENTES, JOSE VELASQUEZ, JESUS GARZA, BRUCE MILLS, VERONICA BRISENO, ROBERT GOODE, STEPHANIE HAYDEN HOWARD, SUSANA CARBAJAL, LUCIO A. DEL TORO, LESLIE DIPPEL, ROSE FRANK, COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE, THE HULL FIRM, DIANA E. BUSS, GREG CASAR, LLOYD DOGGETT, GREG ABBOTT, EMS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, BROWNSIVLLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BROWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, KEN PAXTON, HEB, OREILY'S, STATE OF NEBRASKA, MARTA ROBLES, RUTH MADAM, THE FAMILY OF CYRSTAL RAMIREZ, PATRICK HIGGINBOTHAM, LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, CARL E. STEWART, ERIC GAMEZ, Defendants.
HONORABLE DAVID EZRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
ORDER ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS
MARK LANE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The Magistrate Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2).Because Plaintiff is requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, this court must review and make a recommendation on the merits of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
United States District Judge David A. Ezra referred the Motion (Dkt. 2) to the undersigned. Text order, February 5, 2024. The referral order did not specify whether the referral was for disposition or for a recommendation on the merits. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned resolved the Motion (Dkt. 2) and makes a recommendation as to the merits of the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. Request To Proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form) (Dkt. 2) and determined Plaintiff is indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's request for in forma pauperis status. The Clerk of the Court shall file the complaint without payment of fees or costs or giving security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted subject to a later determination the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is further advised, although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
As stated below, this court has made a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in this complaint and is recommending Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, service upon Defendants should be withheld pending the District Court's review of the recommendations made in this Report. If the District Court declines to adopt the recommendations, then service should be issued at that time upon Defendants.
II. Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is required by statute to review the Complaint. Section 1915(e)(2) provides in relevant part that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, (1989); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28.
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 20-21 (1972). However, Pro se status does not offer a plaintiff an “impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
III. Review of the Merits of the Claim
Plaintiff Caroline Sue Barnett purports to sue seventy-six defendants, including President Joe Biden, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and HEB. Dkt. 1 at 1030. Barnett alleges negligence and an unspecified claim under the Federal Fort Claims Act (referred to in Complaint as “Tort Federal Claim Act,” Dkt. 1 at 4). Id. at 10. She alleges one claim of “Nebraska aggravated assault,” presumably against Defendant 68, State of Nebraska. Id. at 29.
Barnett states her “Reason to sue. County refusing to stop rituals that are causing damages. Witchcraft is connected to my uterus[] and other internal organs.” Id. at 29. She continues, “[t]he county have [sic] been doing sexual harrassment [sic] rituals that obstruct policy as they disturb the peace. It is emotional, Psychological and physically damaging. Women and males are being heard having sexual intercourse consecutively while connected to my person.” Id.
The Complaint goes on like this, asserting nonsensical and incomprehensible statements and allegations. For example, the Complaint includes:
- “Said to be witchcraft practices in aid to stop Lawsuits and Constitutional Rights to Sue for Damages.” Dkt. 1 at ¶ 1 (emphasis in original).
- “Judges who have been aware and did not take action due to staff members involvement. Sexual Harassment rituals, where witchcraft plays a part on tortures of a human being. They prepare altars and order mystical items with personal items of the intended person.” Id. (emphasis and grammatical errors in original).
Barnett seeks relief, including a “[v]ehicle for plaintiff to be paid in full By the City council of Austin” and an “IMMEDIATE order to stop Witchcraft ....” Id. at 5.
Barnett's claims lack an arguable basis in fact because they describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios” and should be dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28.
IV. Order and Recommendations
The Magistrate Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2). The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The referral of this case to the Magistrate Court should now be canceled.
V. Warning
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).