United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
MAURICE HICKS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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. [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.
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
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
(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
and Analysis I.
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
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.
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