Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-CV-452
12-15-2023
DOUGLAS KEITH CASEY v. WAYNE REAUD, CIA, FBI, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWTHORN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Douglas Keith Casey, a federal prisoner currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following defendants: Wayne Reaud, the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), the MDC Los Angeles Detention Facility, Jefferson County Judge Jeff Beranick, the Medical Center of Southeast Texas, Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, Delta Force, and FNU Smith of MDC Los Angeles.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Background
The complaint was originally filed in the Southern District of California On August 4, 2023 (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff paid the full filing fee on August 22, 2023 (Doc. # 7) and filed an Amended Complaint on September 22, 2023 (Doc. # 11). The case was then transferred to the Central District of California on October 30, 2023 (Doc. # 12). On December 12, 2023, venue was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas (Doc. #s 18 & 19).
Plaintiff's complaint is nonsensical, fanciful and delusional. For example, in what Plaintiff refers to as “Count 1" against Defendants Wayne Reaud and the FBI, Plaintiff states the following:
ON 12/6/2022, Ten swat team members of the Beaumont Texas contingent of the FBI swarmed my house after I drove into my driveway armed with a T-bone steak and a knife on my belt. They initially seized both. Later relenting, they turned over both to my wife. Neighbors developing neck strain from peering out of windows . . . intentional drama by the FBI. (After I was safe in jail they returned to seize the knife . . . I guess as a TROPHY for Wayne Reaud.)
My crime? I beat twice Wayne Reaud's “boy”, Randy Weber (illegitemate congressman) and the best congressman money can buy,
The bogus charges alleged “threatening a congressman (no matter how illigitimate)”.
I have not even talked to Randy Weber . . . the charges at best are Hearsay.
Access to courts:
IN 2033, i approached the Jack Brooks Federal courthouse in Beaumont Texas. Two uniformed men who stated they were NOT federal marshalls refused to let me pass to see the federal marshals so that I could file charges of Treason against Wayne Reaud. The two men stated they were from Los Angeles. Later I realized they were guards from the MDC of Los Angeles. Turning me away was their job given them by Wayne Reaud.Amended Complaint, pg. 11 (Doc. # 11) (errors in original). All of Plaintiff's claims are presented in the same format.
Analysis
A review of the petition reveals that it is incomprehensible. A district court may dismiss a complaint under screening if it concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 1934 (5th Cir. 1997). A claim may be deemed to lack an arguable basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional in nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
This claim is without an arguable basis in fact or law. The present pro se litigant does not present a logical set of facts which would enable the court to determine the factual or legal basis for any cause of action. Instead, his complaint recites fantastic charges which are incomprehensible. Although these matters are real to him, the allegations are so fanciful that a reasonable person would find them irrational and completely lacking any factual basis. Dismissal, therefore, is clearly warranted under these circumstances.
Recommendation
The present pro se complaint should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Objections
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.