Opinion
Civil Action 21-617-JWD-EWD
10-31-2022
DWAYNE FRANKLIN #0005556895 v. ERIC DWIGHT FRANKLIN, ET AL.
NOTICE
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on a Complaint, filed by Dwayne Franklin (“Plaintiff”). It is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
Plaintiff, who is confined at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System in Jackson, Louisiana and who is representing himself brought this suit against several defendants, including multiple doctors. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are part of a secret society and are using “witchcraft VooDoo (magic)” to frame innocent people. He also alleges the defendants are using people who “worship Lucifer to control [Plaintiff] and cyber stalk [his] whereabouts,” so Plaintiff may be used as a “blood sacrifice.”
R. Doc. 1.
See R. Doc. 1, p. 3.
R. Doc. 1, p. 3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, this Court is authorized to dismiss an action against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The statutes impose similar standards for dismissal. Both statutes are intended to afford the court the ability to separate those claims that may have merit from those that lack a basis in law or in fact.
§ 1915(e) provides for dismissal of those lawsuits against a governmental entity or employee or officer of a governmental entity that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim in proceedings where the plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. § 1915A provides for dismissal of lawsuits by prisoners that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted regardless of the pauper status of the plaintiff.
A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” The law gives judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim that is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations. A claim is factually frivolous if the alleged facts are “clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and ‘delusional.'” Pleaded facts that are merely improbable or strange, however, are not frivolous for purposes of the screening process.A dismissal may be made at any time, before or after service of process and before or after an answer is filed, if the court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue; or the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).
Denton, 504 U.S. at 32.
Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (1992), citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).
See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff's allegations that the defendants are using witchcraft and VooDoo to lure innocent people into the criminal justice system, so they may be used as sacrifices, and claims of a conspiracy to control Plaintiff by people who worship Lucifer, so that Plaintiff may be used as a blood sacrifice, are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional, rendering them clearly frivolous. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain any non-frivolous allegations against the named Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis on November 3, 2021, so both statutes apply. (R. Doc. 3). defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Given the nature of the allegations, Plaintiff should not be given leave to amend.
See Delgadillo v. Texas Violent Gang Task Force, 134 Fed.Appx. 741 (5th 2005) (affirming a frivolous dismissal of a complaint that alleged the plaintiff was being harmed by “electro convulsive treatments, laser rays, and other forms of radiation through computer monitoring.”).
Though Plaintiff states he was assaulted while housed in the Orleans Parish Jail, none of the named Defendants appear to be connected to the Orleans Parish Jail. Based on the allegations, all doctors named are employed at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, and Eric Dwight Franklin and Keven Franklin appear to be employed by a local church, not the Orleans Parish Jail.
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims of Plaintiff Dwayne Franklin be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and that this case be CLOSED.
Plaintiff is advised that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that, “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section [Proceedings in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Should this Report and Recommendation be adopted, this will count as a strike.