PHILLIPS BERRY v. TRUMP (2019)

Plaintiff-appellant Shanta Phillips-Berry appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against the defendants. Because the plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, we AFFIRM.

The plaintiff filed four complaints in the district court, alleging claims against a range of parties, including the President of the United States, rideshare companies, a social media company, and an electricity utility, among others. The plaintiff’s primary claim centers on an alleged conspiracy among the myriad defendants to commit crimes against the defendant and the United States of America, which included an allegation that the defendants conspired to implant a device into her body that causes her pain and controls her mind.

The district court found the complaint and subsequent motions to be “incoherent and wholly lacking any legal basis.” The district court barred the plaintiff from filing future complaints or motions concerning her criminal conspiracy claims. The plaintiff appealed. Liberally construing her appeal, she argues that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed her claims. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).

An in forma pauperis claim may properly be dismissed “whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” including “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) ); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We find no error in the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, which we review for abuse of discretion. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728. AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.