Huang v. Parker et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Han Jing Huang, 1 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Han Jing Huang. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
HAN JING HUANG

§
§
V.
§
§
APRIL PARKER, NATIONWIDE
§
INSURANCE COMPANY,
§
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTIN,
§
BELLA BEAUTIFUL COLLEGE, ASIA
§
CHINESE AND VIETNAMESE
§
RESTAURANT, BAMBOO GARDEN
§
CHINESE RESTAURANT, AND
§
CHARLIE SHEEN (AS A
§
REPRESENT[ATIVE] OF SOME MOVIE §
STARS)
§

A-12-CV-0055 LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Han Jing Huang’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Clerk’s Doc. No. 1) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Clerk’s Doc. No. 2), filed on January
18, 2012. The 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.
I. ANALYSIS
After considering Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff is indigent.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff in forma pauperis status in the instant case.
Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by

standing order to review each Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). That statute reads in
pertinent part as follows:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .
(B)

the action or appeal(i)
(ii)
(iii)

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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and the claims “are of little or no weight,
value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial.” Deutsch v. United States, 67
F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995). A complaint is malicious when it “duplicates allegations of another
pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff.” Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-521 (1972). The court must “accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996).
A pro se complaint can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim when “it appears ‘beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’”
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–521 (1972). However, the petitioner’s pro se status does not
offer him “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).

2

Plaintiff Han Jing Huang has filed this lawsuit against Charlie Sheen (the television and
movie actor), April Parker, Bella Beautiful College, Asia Chinese and Vietnamese Restaurant,
Bamboo Garden Chinese Restaurant, the Government of Austin, and Nationwide Insurance
Company. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants Charlie Sheen, April Parker and Bella
Beautiful College “[d]esigned a traffic accident” that Plaintiff was allegedly involved in. Complaint
at p. 2. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Asia Chinese and Vietnamese Restaurant,
Bamboo Garden Chinese Restaurant, the Government of Austin, and Nationwide Insurance
Company “support crime” and illegally blocked his “treatment.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that
“Defendants are illegal [sic] putting some items into plaintiff’s body, badly affecting the health
recovery of plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff further adds that the named Defendants are “just a corner of [the]
snow mountain, not the whole.” Plaintiff notes that several other defendants should be added to the
case such as the Disney Corporation, Dreamworks, Jacky Chan, Farmers Insurance Company, Drew
Barrymore, James Cameron, and Brad Pitt. Id. Plaintiff seeks over $300,000 in monetary damages
and requests that the Defendants stop “putting items in plaintiff’s body, especial [sic] in brain” and
“[s]how the truth to the public and return peace to the public.” Id.
As stated above, section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that a district court shall dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint, at any time, if the district court determines that the action is frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact and is factually frivolous
when the allegations are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional or when they “rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). Plaintiff’s
allegations in this case clearly fall into the “fanciful,” “fantastic” and “delusional” categories. See
Flores v. United States Attorney General, 434 Fed. App’x. 387, 388, 2011 WL 3209869 at * 1(5th
3

Cir. July 27, 2011) (finding that pro se plaintiff’s fanciful and delusional claims should be dismissed
as frivolous where plaintiff alleged that certain members of the federal government were “using
advanced technology with direct signal to the satellite in outer space that has the capability of
calculating a genetic code to inflict upon the petitioner. . . .”). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s
allegations are equally delusional and fanciful and should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Clerk’s Doc. No. 2).
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s
Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
III. 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 ten (10) 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, 106 S. Ct. 466,

4

472-74 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report &
Recommendation electronically pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
directed to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2012.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5