United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
DOUGHTY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge
Louise McDuffy-Johnson (“Plaintiff”), who is
self-represented, filed this civil action on a civil rights
complaint form. She names as a defendant Daniel A. Lane,
III.Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has used
“cyber technology” to sexually assault her. For
the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the complaint
be dismissed as frivolous.
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 sing 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 claims that 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 uniquenesses without
threat of vandalism and assault. The device has properties of
espionage, destruction of evidence, audio/visual to name a
few. The latter where defendant through noise pollution,
videos sometimes pornography disturbs the peace nearly every
day for past few months.
Id. at Part IV. Plaintiff requests the court to
strip the defendant “of all weapons used to harm others
maliciously or/and remove him from accessing them, ” to
imprison defendant, to “bind him ‘hand and
feet' and allow no more damage to any other, ” and
to order him to pay restitution. Id.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a district court to
dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted. “A district court may dismiss an
action on its own motion under Rule 12(b)(6) as long as the
procedure employed is fair.” Bazrowx v. Scott,
136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). This procedure is fair,
because this Report and Recommendation provides Plaintiff
with sufficient notice of and opportunity to respond to the
possible dismissal of his case. See Magouirk v.
Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998) (sua
sponte invocation of defense in Report and
Recommendation satisfied due process).
of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if it fails
to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The complaint must
allege enough facts to move the claim “across the line
from conceivable to plausible.” Id.
Determining whether the plausibility standard has been met is
“a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
12(b)(6) does not ordinarily allow dismissal based on the
mere fact that a judge does not believe a complainant's
factual allegations. Dismissal has nonetheless been found
appropriate when the well-pleaded facts were clearly baseless
because they were fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.
See, e.g., Gallop v. Chaney, 642
F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing a complaint that set
forth a fantastical alternative history of the September 11,
2011 terrorist attacks). Some courts have responded to such
complaints by dismissing for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the allegations in a
complaint are absolutely devoid of merit, wholly
insubstantial, obviously ...