Patterson v. U.S. Gov't

Filing 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE on case: Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed as frivolous. In addition, plaintiff should be warned that the filing of any frivolous lawsuits in the future may res ult in the imposition of sanctions, including an order barring her from filing any civil actions without paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or magistrate judge. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 12/15/2008) (twd)

IN THE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS D A L L A S DIVISION R U E B E N APATTERSON
Plaintiff,

$
!

VS. UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT
Defendant.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

NO.3-08-CV-2r9s-M

F I N D I N G S AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U N I T E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h i s case has been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for initial screening p u r s u a n t 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)anda standing orderofreferencefrom the district court. The findings to and recommendationof the magistratejudge are as follow: I. a Patterson, residentof Dallas,Texas, civil actionbroughtby Ruebena T h i s is an unspecified a g a i n s t the United StatesGovemment. On December I l, 2008, plaintiff tendereda one-page complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed informa pauperis. Becausethe affidavit indicatesthat shelacksthe funds necessary information provided by plaintiff in her pauper's to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the that the c o m p l a i n tto be filed. After screening complaint,the courtdetermines this actionis frivolous under28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2). a n d shouldbe summarilydismissed

u.
Plaintiff generally alleges that she has been defamed at her workplace and elsewherein society. Illustrative of plaintiff s claims arethat shehasbeentrackedwith a remote control bracelet, -1-

that she is followed and ridiculed everywhereshe goes,that her telephoneand computer are being monitored, and that the media and societyhave labeledher in negativeways. Plaintifffurther alleges that she has been falsely accusedof being a terrorist and murdering her ex-husband. By this suit, p l a i n t i f f seeksbetween$100,000and $300,000in monetarydamages. A. A district court may summarilydismissa complaintfiled informa pauperis if it concludes, i n t e r alia, that the action "is frivolousor malicious." 28 U.S,C. $ 1915(e)(2)(BXi).An actionis f r i v o l o u s if it lacks an arguablebasisin eitherlaw or fact. Neitzkev. Williams,490 U.S. 319,325, (5thCir.), (1989); Rogers,gz3F.2d51,53 Henson-Elv. 1 0 9S.Ct.1827,1831-32,104L.Ed.2d338 basisin law if it is grounded c e r t . denied,l I I S.Ct.2863(199I). A complaintis without an arguable legal theory. Neitzke,l09 S.Ct. at 1831. A claim is factually or u p o n an untenable discredited scenarios' the legaltheoryuponwhich or or f r i v o l o u s when "the factsallegedare'fantastic delusional a complaintrelies is'indisputablymeritless."' Harris v. Hegmann,198F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) ;seealso Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, 32, ll2 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, I l8 L.Ed.2d 340

(1ee2).
B. P l a i n t i f f d o e s not presenta logical set offacts to supportany claim for relief. Instead,her which arefanciful and delusionalin nature. Dismissalis clearly c o m p l a i n trecitesfantasticcharges warranted under thesecircumstances. See,e.g. Patterson v. United StatesGovernmenf,No. 3-08C V - 1 7 3 0 - K , 2 0 0 8 WL 5061800(N.D. Tex. Nov. 25,2008) (dismissingcomplaintallegingthat unidentified governmentagentstrackedplaintiffwith remotecontrol bracelet,transmittedmessages through television ads and her pastor, and threatenedto put plaintiff in a dungeon); Melton v.

-2-

American Civil Liberties Union,No. 3-07-CV-0856-M,2007 (N.D.Tex.Jul.30,2007) WL2263953 (dismissing complaintallegingthatACLU andits attorneys, actingasunregistered Russian agents, plaintiffs civil rightsandthose otherAmericans usingthecourts attack United violated of by to the States Constitutionand setupaCommunistgovernment);Jacksonv. No. 3-05-CV-1230-H, Johnso,n, (N.D.Tex.Jun.27,2005),rec. 2 0 0 5WL 1521495 adopted,2005 1668084 WL OI.D.Tex.Jul.13, 2005), (5th appeal (dismissing dism4 No. 05-10939 Cir.Jan.16,2006) complaint alleging FBI that conspired with local and statepoliceto invadeplaintiffs privacythrough"highly sophisticated surveillance techniques, computerized mind control,and satellite weaponry"); Johnson Drug v. Enforcement Agency, No. 3-04-CV-0410-G, WL 813214 2004 rec. O{.D.Tex. Apr. 14,2004), a d o p t e d , 2 0 0 4 W L 9 4 8 2(N.D.Tex.May3,2004),appeal 65 dism'dosfrivolous,l3T Fed.Appx.680, (5th 2 0 0 5WL 1444386 Cir. Jun.21 complaint alleging thatDEA implanted a ,2005) (dismissing plaintiffs scalpand forcedhim to ingestvariouschemicals and sleepradio transmitterbeneath (N.D.Tex. Jun.17, Danielv. FBI, No. 3-03-CV-1281-N, WL 21436479 2003 inducing drugs); (N.D.Tex.Jul.8, 2003)(dismissing complaint alleging 2003), rec.adopted,2003 21555130 WL plaintiff because ran asa write-incandidate for harassed, triedto poison she t h a tFBI stalked, and P r e s i d e nof the UnitedStates). t
C. Federalcourts have inherent authority "to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice and . . . to command respectfor [its] orders,judgments, procedures,and authority." In re S t o n e , 9 8 6F .2d 898,902 (5th Cir. 1993). Includedin suchpower is the authorityto levy sanctions i n response abusivelitigation practices.Id Sanctions to may be appropriate when apro se litigant h a sa history of submittingmultiple frivolous claims. SeeFrn. R. Cry. P. I 1; Mendozav. Lynaugh,
a -J-

989 F.2d l9l, 195-97(5th Cir. 1993). Litigantswho abusethejudicial processare "not entitledto sue and appeal without paying the normal filing fees--indeed,are not entitled to sue and appeal, p e r i o d . " Brewer v. Coclrell, No. 3-03-CV-0768-P,2003WL 21448362at * I (N.D. Tex. May 5, (I{.D. Tex. May 15,2003),quotingFree v. UnitedStates, WL 21488150 2 0 0 3 ) , r e c .adopted,2003 may include restrictionson the ability 8 7 9 F . 2 d 1535, 1536(7th Cir. 1989). Appropriatesanctions to file future lawsuits without leave of court and monetary sanctions. Seegenerally, McCampbell sanctions available v . KPMG Peat Marwick,982 F.Supp.445,448-49(N.D.Tex.1997) (discussing t o deter and punish pro se litigants for abusing the judicial systemby filing multiple frivolous lawsuits). P l a i n t i f f has filed three different lawsuitsagainstthe United Statesgovernmentwithin the including the instantlawsuit, eitherhave beenor will be dismissed l a s t three months. Two cases, (N.D. Tex.,filed No. v. Governmenf, 3-08-CV-2195-M a s frivolous. See Patterson UnitedStates that whereinplaintiff alleges D e c . I l, 2008);Patterson,2008 WL 5061800at*2. The third case, the government retaliated against her for divorcing her ex-husband,also appearsto be frivolous. No. 3-08-CV-2118-K (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 1, 2008). In P a t t e r s o nv. United StatesGovernmenf, view of this conduct,plaintiff should be warnedthat the filing of any frivolous lawsuits in the future includingan orderbarringher from filing any civil actions m a y resultin the impositionof sanctions, without paying the required f,rling fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or judge. magistrate RECOMMENDATION P l a i n t i f f s complaint should be summarily dismissedas frivolous pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2). In addition,plaintiff shouldbe warnedthat the filing of any frivolous lawsuitsin the

-4-

future may result in the imposition of sanctions,including an order baning her from filing any civil actions without paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge judge. o r magistrate A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party may file written objectionsto the recommendationwithin l0 daysafter b e i n g servedwith a copy. See28 U.S.C. $ 636(bxl); Fno. R. Ctv. P.72(b). The failure to file written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistratejudge that are acceptedor adoptedby the district court, except upon g r o u n d s plain enor. SeeDouglass UnitedServices of v. Automobile Ass'n,79F.3d 1415,l4l7 (sth C i r . 1996).

D A T E D : December 2008. 15.

LAN

JUDCE NIAGISTRATE STATES

-5-