concluding that dismissal “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”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that dismissal “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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
REGINA TUBBS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:24-cv-1979-D-BN
§
FORT WORTH POLICE §
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Without paying the statutory filing fee, Plaintiff Regina Tubbs submitted a
filing pro se that has been construed as a civil complaint. See Dkt. No. 3.
Senior United States District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater referred Tubbs’s
construed complaint to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
A district court is required to screen a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
(that is, without payment of the filing fee) and may summarily dismiss that complaint
(or any portion of it) if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks
the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d
732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). And “[i]t is well-established that a district
court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion under [Rule] 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may granted.” Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No.
3:18-cv-2851-M-BH, 2018 WL 6069969, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018) (citing Carroll
v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 2006)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 6068991
(N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 383 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 142 (2019).
A district court may exercise its “inherent authority ... to dismiss a complaint
on its own motion ... ‘as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Gaffney v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., 294 F. App’x 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Carroll,
470 F.3d at 1177; citation omitted). “[F]airness in this context requires both notice of
the court’s intention to dismiss sua sponte and an opportunity to respond.” Id.
(cleaned up; quoting Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636, 643 (5th Cir.
2007)). These findings, conclusions, and recommendations provides notice, and the
period for filing objections to them affords an opportunity to respond. See, e.g.,
Starrett, 2018 WL 6069969, at *2 (citations omitted)).
A district court’s authority to dismiss an action that “fails to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face’” extends to dismissal of “claims that are ‘clearly
baseless,’ including ‘claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.’” Starrett, 763
F. App’x at 383-84 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, then Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
(concluding that dismissal “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”)).
A review of Tubbs’s filing reflects that it presents allegations that qualify as
clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal of the construed
complaint with prejudice.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the construed complaint with prejudice.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. □□□□
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: August 23, 2024
Lee
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-3-