Summary
A magistrate judge recommends dismissing Charee L. Anderson-Taylor’s pro se complaint against the federal government with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The recommendation concludes that the complaint is unintelligible, alleges fanciful and incredible claims, and is additionally barred by sovereign immunity.
Holdings
- The complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous because its allegations were unintelligible, failed to state a viable claim, and were fanciful and incredible.
- Dismissal was also appropriate because the complaint did not identify any waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether the complaint's allegations were sufficiently coherent and plausible to state a cognizable claim when liberally construed.
- Whether sovereign immunity independently supported dismissal because no waiver by the federal government was apparent.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)(followed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Lynch v. U.S. Government, No. 7:09-CV-130-O, 2009 WL 2949770, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2009)(followed)
- Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…