United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
SHANTA G. PHILLIPS-BERRY
PATRICIA BLACKWELL SCURLOCK, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
above-captioned matter previously came before the Court
pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(B)(1) for a determination of
pauper status under 28 U.S.C. §1915. (Rec. docs. 2, 5).
LSA-C.C. Art. 2315(A) and 42 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiff
brings this lawsuit for the ostensible purpose of exposing a
reported conspiracy among “willing and unwilling”
individuals in which citizens of the state are being harmed,
threatened, and assaulted on a daily basis. Plaintiff relates
that her body has become an experiment without her consent
whereby it is injected with implants that result in pain and
damage to her health and thoughts. Plaintiff charges the
named Defendants with using government funds to further their
criminalistic behavior, to pursue false insurance claims, to
advance corruption, and to promote acts constituting
malpractice. The precise relief sought by Plaintiff is not
readily apparent based upon a review of her principal
pleading. (Rec. doc. 1).
noted above, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915. (Rec. doc. 5). As mandated by that statute,
courts are directed to dismiss such matters at any time it is
determined, inter alia, that the action is
frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is
frivolous if the claims alleged therein have no arguable
basis in law or fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114,
115 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1993). Factual frivolousness
includes those allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33,
112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992); Ancar v. SARA Plasma,
964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). Indeed,
“[w]hen a plaintiff's complaint is facially
frivolous and insubstantial, it is insufficient to invoke the
jurisdiction of a federal court. Dilworth v. Dallas
County Comm. College District, 81 F.3d 616, 617
(5th Cir. 1996). Dismissal under the
“substantiality doctrine” is reserved for
complaints containing “truly fanciful
allegations” such as those “… suggesting
bizarre conspiracy theories, fantastic manipulations of their
will or mind, and any sort of supernatural interventions
…” McCastle v. United States, No.
15-CV-0420, 2016 WL 7496170 at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2016),
adopted, 2016 WL 7626595 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2016).
by the foregoing standards, Plaintiff's complaint should
be dismissed as frivolous for being fantastic, delusional,
and wholly incredible. Thibeaux v. Cain, 425
Fed.Appx. 399 (5th Cir. 2011)(action regarding
wire implanted in plaintiff's body which was used to
monitor him); Thibeaux v. Gee, No. 18-CV-0004, 2018
WL 2054589 at *3 (M.D. La. Mar. 16, 2018), adopted,
2018 WL 2050152 (M.D. La. May 2, 2018((same); Thibeaux v.
Gee, No. 17-CV-0668, 2017 WL 6884338 at *3 (M.D. La.
Nov. 3, 2017), adopted, 2018 WL 343890 (M.D. La.
Jan. 9, 2018)(same); McCastle, 2016 WL 7496170 at
*2. The facial frivolity of Plaintiff's complaint also
implicates the substantiality doctrine and warrants dismissal
on that basis as well. McCastle, 2016 WL 7496170 at
*2. Further, as to the first-listed Defendant, Patricia
Blackwell Scurlock, Plaintiff's allegations in this
lawsuit are largely duplicative of those presented in
Phillips-Berry v. State of Louisiana, et al., No.
18-CV-6037 “F” (4) and are thus malicious under
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Bailey v. Thompson, 846 F.2d
1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Given Plaintiff's
wholly conclusory and thus insubstantial allegations of a
conspiracy, Young v. Biggers, 938 F.2d 565, 569
(5th Cir. 1991), the necessary state action
element required under §1983 is lacking as to Defendants
Joseph Albe and Robert Lenter and Doctors Thaddeus L. Teaford
and Mahmoud M. Sarmini. Similarly, the collective “U.S.
States Military” is not a state actor acting under
color of state law as §1983 requires. Lyons v.
Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 495 (5th Cir. 1987).
State action is equally absent with respect to the entirety
of the Ochsner and East Jefferson Healthcare Systems,
Facebook, Uber, Lyft, Hollywood Productions, Gulf Coast Bank
and Trust Company, Uncle Bob's Storage, and Enterprise
Leasing Company. Finally, the various Louisiana Departments
named as Defendants herein are not considered to be
“persons” subject to suit under §1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
109 S.Ct. 2304 (1989). For all these reasons, it will be
recommended that Plaintiff's suit be dismissed as
frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's
suit be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained
in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party,
except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United
States Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.
Douglass referenced the
previously-applicable 10-day period for the filing of
objections. Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) was amended to ...