Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDuffy-Johnson v. Lane

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

April 9, 2019

JULIA LOUISE MCDUFFY-JOHNSON
v.
DANIEL A. LANE, III

          S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Julia Louise McDuffy-Johnson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-captioned action on March 25, 2019 against Daniel A. Lane, III.[1] [doc. # 1]. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         Background

          Plaintiff alleges the following:

The defendant has both met with plaintiff in person and told her of his knowledge of a device housing data with her whole life on it, (2006) as well as been the primary participant in perpetrating crimes against her by the using thereof, anatomical and sex crime. Defendant, using the said means does hinder plaintiff's prayer times (he can hear and see when she prays). He rapes via “cyber technology” to hurt plaintiff's body for retaliation. He does raping when plaintiff meditates holy scriptures, uses the said to coerce plaintiff to have sex with telepathic “sensual” forged weapon(s).

[doc. # 1, Part III]. Plaintiff also claims she is damaged by the

installation of cyber weaponry installed to plaintiff's anatomical portals. The installation(s) of said damage is lifelong, malicious and “active”. It gives defendant the ability to repeat offend at his will twenty-four hours a day, 365 days per year since 2005. . . . The weapon (super imposed) causes plaintiff inability to protect herself . . . . It is a severe security breach leaving only certain spiritual uniqueness without threat of vandalism and assault. The device has properties of espionage, destruction of evidence, audio / visual to name a few.

(Id. Part IV) (mistakes in original). Plaintiff requests the Court strip the defendant of “all weaponry intended for ill will, ” imprison him “with maximum confinement and security, ” and “bind him ‘hand and feet' and allow no more danger to any other.” (Id.)

         Law and Analysis I.

         Preliminary Screening

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, her Complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2)(b) provides for sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the court determines the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

         A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law “if it is premised on an ‘indisputably meritless legal theory.'” Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact “if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,' a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and ‘delusional.'” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citations omitted). “As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id.

         A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted if it fails to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Likewise, a complaint fails to state a claim “if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.” Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.