Opinion
1:23-CV-01149-DII
02-01-2024
DARION DION FREDERICK, Plaintiff v. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FIELDS, Defendant
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DUSTIN M. HOWELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The undersigned 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 Darion Dion Frederick's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 2. Because Frederick is requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned must review and make a recommendation on the merits of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court has reviewed Frederick's financial affidavit and determined that Frederick is indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Frederick's request for in forma pauperis status, Dkt. 2. 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 that 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). Frederick is further advised that, although he 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, the undersigned has made a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in this complaint and is recommending Frederick's claims be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, service upon Defendant 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 Defendant.
II. REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
Because Frederick has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned 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.
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (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).
Frederick brings a complaint for his “emotion[al] and physical wellbeing” and “emotional traumatization,” apparently caused by “alien friends from other planets” that “torture kids and torture adults.” Dkt. 1, at 1. While Frederick's Civil Cover Sheet indicates that his basis for jurisdiction is “U.S. Government Defendant,” Dkt. 1-2, at 1, he is suing “Artificial Intelligence Fields.”
“Some claims are ‘so unsubstantial, implausible, ... or otherwise completely devoid of merit as to not involve a federal controversy.'” Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). Where, as here, a plaintiff's complaint is “insubstantial, it is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.” Dilworth v. Dall. Cnty. Cmty, Coll. Dist., 81 F.3d 616, 617 (5th Cir. 1996); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (explaining that factually frivolous complaints involve allegations which are “‘clearly baseless' ... whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them” (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327)); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946). That is, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims which are “insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions ..., or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Frederick's complaint is both frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted by this Court. Frederick's complaint should be dismissed.
III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned hereby GRANTS Frederick's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 2. The undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS Frederick's cause of action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The referral of this case to the Magistrate Judge should now be canceled.
IV. WARNINGS
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 Battle 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 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 Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).