1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

JOHNNY SATURN,

 Plaintiff

v.

AUSTIN BERGSTROM 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

A-20-CV-442-LY-SH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before this Court are Johnny Saturn’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on April 26, 2020 (“Application,” Dkt. No. 5), and 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). This case is assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 

disposition of the Application and report and recommendation pursuant to Rule 1 of Appendix C 

of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and the 

Court Docket Management Standing Order for United States District Judge Lee Yeakel.

I. In Forma Pauperis Status

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Application, the Court finds that he is indigent. Accordingly, the 

Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ORDERS his Complaint to be 

filed without pre-payment of fees or costs or giving security therefor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). This indigent status is granted subject to a later determination that the action should 

be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is further advised that although he has been granted leave 

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 4
2

to proceed in forma pauperis, a Court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion 

of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).

As stated below, this Court has conducted a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in the 

Complaint and is recommending that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Therefore, service on the Defendants should be withheld pending the District Court’s 

review of the recommendations made in this report. If the District Court declines to adopt the 

recommendations, then service should be issued at that time on the Defendants.

II. Section 1915(e)(2) Frivolousness Review

A. Standard of Review

Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required 

by standing order to review his Complaint under § 1915(e)(2). A district court may summarily 

dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Under this statute, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 

1998). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal 

theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not 

exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 

882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998)). It lacks an arguable factual basis only if the facts alleged are “clearly 

baseless,” a category encompassing “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” allegations. Denton 

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). “Some claims are 

so insubstantial, implausible, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal 

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 4
3

controversy. Federal courts lack power to entertain these wholly insubstantial and frivolous 

claims.” Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 2019) 

(cleaned up).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)

While many of Plaintiff’s allegations are incomprehensible, he appears to assert claims of 

defamation and invasion of privacy against Defendant Austin Bergstrom International Airport for 

events dating to May 16, 2010. Plaintiff alleges: “The defendant as represented by its agents and 

gangs was alleging plaintiff Saturn as stalker and one who had made or plot car bomb planted in 

his car while it was parked in his parents house garage, and the bomb was supposed to be 

detonating at 8:30 a.m.” [sic]. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 5; see also id. at ¶¶ 12, 19. For his defamation claim, 

Plaintiff alleges in part that: 

Defendant A.B.I.A. and re-published the false Statements of and 

concerning Plaintiff Saturn on the Internet by emails, twitters, and 

thru any else available internet wireless and wired communication, 

and other mediums, asserting and creating the false impression that, 

among other things, Plaintiff Saturn stalks women, is suicide, is cab 

driver, has seven lawsuits against him, had stalked [name omitted] 

Starbucks Arboretum Market, is any else deteriorated description as 

it was created by Starbucks Arboretum Market manager during her 

time of work during Summer, 2009. [sic].

Id. at ¶ 41. For his invasion of privacy claim, Plaintiff alleges that: 

Defendant A.B.I.A. did willfully conspire to deprive Plaintiff of his 

day in court and violated his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1985 by conspiring with the couple [names omitted] who were exhome owners of my ex leased house by being promised to have the 

defendant as the tenant and lessee harassed by an intruder supplied 

with biochemical weapon, satellite sabotage and wireless WiFi. gps. 

tracking device and extra keys copies of ex-homeowners to intrude 

the house while Plaintiff Saturn would be sleeping. [sic].

Id. at ¶ 51. Plaintiff seeks actual damages of $2.5 trillion and punitive damages of $1.25 trillion 

for these alleged actions.

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 4
4

As noted, courts must liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But under even the most liberal construction, Plaintiff alleges

implausible and clearly baseless claims against the Defendants. Because Plaintiff has made only 

fanciful, fantastic, and delusional allegations, his Complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. See, 

e.g., Atakapa Indian, 943 F.3d at 1005 (affirming dismissal as frivolous of claims alleging 

defendants had, “among other misdeeds, monopolized ‘intergalactic foreign trade’”).

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS

Johnny Saturn’s lawsuit as frivolous sunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

V. WARNINGS

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen 

(14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, 

except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to 

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on May 11, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00442-LY Document 7 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 4