Saturn v. Austin Bergstrom International Airport

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of United States Magistrate Judge re 1 Complaint filed by Johnny Saturn, 5 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Johnny Saturn. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and ORDERS that his Complaint be filed. Service on the Defendants should be withheld pending the District Court's review of the recommendations made in this report. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (jv2)

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JOHNNY SATURN,
Plaintiff

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
AUSTIN BERGSTROM
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Defendant

A-20-CV-442-LY-SH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before this Court are Johnny Saturn’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on April 26, 2020 (“Application,” Dkt. No. 5), and
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). This case is assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
disposition of the Application and report and recommendation pursuant to Rule 1 of Appendix C
of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and the
Court Docket Management Standing Order for United States District Judge Lee Yeakel.
I. In Forma Pauperis Status
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Application, the Court finds that he is indigent. Accordingly, the
Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ORDERS his Complaint to be
filed without pre-payment of fees or costs or giving security therefor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). 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). Plaintiff is further advised that although he has been granted leave

1

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 4

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, this Court has conducted a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in the
Complaint and is recommending that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Therefore, service on the Defendants 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 on the Defendants.
II. Section 1915(e)(2) Frivolousness Review
A. Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required
by standing order to review his Complaint under § 1915(e)(2). A district court may summarily
dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is (1) frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Under this statute, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.
1998). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d
882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998)). It lacks an arguable factual basis only if the facts alleged are “clearly
baseless,” a category encompassing “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” allegations. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). “Some claims are
so insubstantial, implausible, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal

2

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 4

controversy. Federal courts lack power to entertain these wholly insubstantial and frivolous
claims.” Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 2019)
(cleaned up).
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)
While many of Plaintiff’s allegations are incomprehensible, he appears to assert claims of
defamation and invasion of privacy against Defendant Austin Bergstrom International Airport for
events dating to May 16, 2010. Plaintiff alleges: “The defendant as represented by its agents and
gangs was alleging plaintiff Saturn as stalker and one who had made or plot car bomb planted in
his car while it was parked in his parents house garage, and the bomb was supposed to be
detonating at 8:30 a.m.” [sic]. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 5; see also id. at ¶¶ 12, 19. For his defamation claim,
Plaintiff alleges in part that:
Defendant A.B.I.A. and re-published the false Statements of and
concerning Plaintiff Saturn on the Internet by emails, twitters, and
thru any else available internet wireless and wired communication,
and other mediums, asserting and creating the false impression that,
among other things, Plaintiff Saturn stalks women, is suicide, is cab
driver, has seven lawsuits against him, had stalked [name omitted]
Starbucks Arboretum Market, is any else deteriorated description as
it was created by Starbucks Arboretum Market manager during her
time of work during Summer, 2009. [sic].
Id. at ¶ 41. For his invasion of privacy claim, Plaintiff alleges that:
Defendant A.B.I.A. did willfully conspire to deprive Plaintiff of his
day in court and violated his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985 by conspiring with the couple [names omitted] who were exhome owners of my ex leased house by being promised to have the
defendant as the tenant and lessee harassed by an intruder supplied
with biochemical weapon, satellite sabotage and wireless WiFi. gps.
tracking device and extra keys copies of ex-homeowners to intrude
the house while Plaintiff Saturn would be sleeping. [sic].
Id. at ¶ 51. Plaintiff seeks actual damages of $2.5 trillion and punitive damages of $1.25 trillion
for these alleged actions.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 4

As noted, courts must liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But under even the most liberal construction, Plaintiff alleges
implausible and clearly baseless claims against the Defendants. Because Plaintiff has made only
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional allegations, his Complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. See,
e.g., Atakapa Indian, 943 F.3d at 1005 (affirming dismissal as frivolous of claims alleging
defendants had, “among other misdeeds, monopolized ‘intergalactic foreign trade’”).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS
Johnny Saturn’s lawsuit as frivolous sunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
V. 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
(14) 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 on 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); 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).
SIGNED on May 11, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4