From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Bank of America

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 30, 2004
No. 3:04-CV-863-M (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:04-CV-863-M.

April 30, 2004


FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

I. BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2004, Plaintiff filed this unspecified civil action. He is proceeding pro se and the Court has granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bank of America "misallocated" in excess of ten million dollars from his account. He states that Oprah Winfrey and radio station owner Karen Hughes deposited these funds in his account between October 15, 2002, and November 1, 2002, but that the funds were never credited to his account. He states the account was later closed with a negative balance of thirty-six dollars. Plaintiff also alleges that the Drug Enforcement Agency has a person, who is perhaps an undercover agent, that has been acting as his accountant.

II. DISCUSSION

The terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) authorize a federal court to dismiss an action in which the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis before service if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. Under this standard, a district court may review a complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims premised on meritless legal theories and those which clearly lack any basis in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.C. 1728, 1733 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.C. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the claims describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios," or "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 32-33, 112 S.C. at 1733. Plaintiff's allegations come within this doctrine and, accordingly, should be dismissed with prejudice. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318-19 (5th Cir. 1993).

III. SANCTIONS

Plaintiff has filed two other cases in the Northern District of Texas in the last two months. In Johnson v. Trinity Mother Frances Hospital, 3:03-CV-409-R, Plaintiff alleged that two physicians implanted a radio transmitter beneath his scalp in 1996. In Johnson v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 3:03-CV-410-G, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant implanted a radio transmitter beneath his scalp and forced him to ingest various chemicals and sleep-inducing drugs to isolate him from fellow members of his race. In both cases the magistrate judge has recommended that the complaints be dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff should be warned that any future abusive lawsuits may result in the imposition of sanctions, including an order prohibiting him from filing any civil actions without paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or magistrate judge.

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends the complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court also recommends that Plaintiff be warned that any future frivolous lawsuits may result in the imposition of sanctions, including an order prohibiting him from filing any civil actions without paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or magistrate judge.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).


Summaries of

Johnson v. Bank of America

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 30, 2004
No. 3:04-CV-863-M (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2004)
Case details for

Johnson v. Bank of America

Case Details

Full title:DARRELL S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Apr 30, 2004

Citations

No. 3:04-CV-863-M (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2004)