1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

AMANDA KAYE PHILLIPS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-617-RP

§

CITY OF AUSTIN, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

In 2018, Senior United States District Judge Sam Sparks barred Plaintiff Amanda Kaye 

Phillips (“Phillips”) “from filing additional lawsuits in the Western District of Texas without first

obtaining leave from a Federal District Judge in the Western District of Texas, Austin

Division, or a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.” Phillips v. Austin 

Diagnostic Clinic Surgery Center, No. 1:17-CV-940-SS (W.D. Tex. filed Mar. 1, 2018) (Order, Dkt. 21, at 

6). On March 19, 2020, Phillips filed a motion for leave to file an 85-page complaint, which alleged a 

laundry list of constitutional and tort claims against 23 defendants. Phillips v. Austin Police Department,

No. 1:20-CV-297-RP (W.D. Tex. filed Mar. 9, 2020) (“Phillips I”) (Compl., Dkt. 1-1). After reviewing 

Phillips’s claims, the Court dismissed her complaint as frivolous. (Text Order, Mar. 23, 2020 

(“Phillips’s complaint fails to allege a non-frivolous claim”)). 

The following day, Phillips filed a petition in Travis County District Court alleging the exact 

same claims she asserted in Phillips I. Compare Phillips I (W.D. Tex. filed Mar. 9, 2020) (Compl., Dkt. 

1-1), with (Orig. Pet., Dkt. 1-2). Defendants removed Phillips’s state-court petition to this Court. 

(Notice Removal, Dkt. 1). In both her Phillips I complaint and the state-court petition currently 

before the Court, Phillips purports to bring claims against 23 defendants for alleged retaliation; age, 

sex, disability, and national origin discrimination; fraudulent misrepresentation; abuse of process; 

Case 1:20-cv-00617-RP Document 23 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 3
2

legal malpractice; civil conspiracy; violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 

Act (“RICO”); intentional infliction of emotional distress; and negligence. (See Orig. Pet., Dkt. 1-2, 

at 4–84). There are now five motions to dismiss1and two motions for judgment on the pleadings2

pending in this matter. These motions all note that Phillips filed the same claims against the same 

Defendants in Phillips I and seek dismissal for various reasons, including that Phillips’s claims are 

frivolous. (See Dkt. 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19). 

District courts have the inherent authority to screen a pleading for frivolousness and may 

dismiss sua sponte claims that are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of 

merit, or no longer open to discussion” because such claims lack “the “legal plausibility necessary to 

invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479–80 (6th Cir. 1999) (per 

curiam) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974); Dilworth v. Dallas Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 

81 F.3d 616, 617 (5th Cir. 1996)). This inherent power applies even with respect to complaints in 

which the plaintiff is not a prisoner and has paid a filing fee. Black v. Hornsby, No. 5:14-CV-0822, 

2014 WL 2535168, at *3 (W.D. La. May 15, 2014), subsequently aff’d sub nom. Black v. Hathaway, 616 F. 

App’x 650 (5th Cir. 2015).

Having reviewed Phillips’s 85-page state-court petition, the Court finds that it is not only 

completely frivolous, but identical to the complaint she filed in Phillips I, which the Court previously

dismissed for failure to plead a non-frivolous claim. (Phillips I, Text Order, March 23, 2020). Because 

1

(See Travis County Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 6 (filed by Defendants Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Travis 

County District Attorney’s Office, and Assistant District Attorney Gustavo Garcia, Jr. (collectively, “Travis 

County Defendants”)); City Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 7 (filed by Defendants Austin Police Department, City 

of Austin, and Detective Calvin Pierce (collectively, “City Defendants”)); Hospital Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 

10 (filed by Defendants Ascension, Ascension Seton, Christopher Born, Deb Brown, Jackson Lewis PC, 

Robert Fischer, Julie Tower, and Carolyn Cummings (collectively, “Hospital Defendants”)); Mot. Dismiss, 

Dkt. 12 (filed by Defendant Austin Community College); Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 15 (filed by Defendant State Bar 

of Texas)).

2

(See Mot. J. Pleadings, Dkt. 17 (filed by Defendants the University of Texas at Austin and Dell Medical 

School at the University of Texas at Austin); Mot. J. Pleadings, Dkt. 19 (filed by Defendant Texas Board of 

Nursing)).

Case 1:20-cv-00617-RP Document 23 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 3
3

the Court again finds that all of Phillips’s claims are totally frivolous, the Court will invoke its 

inherent authority to dismiss this action with prejudice. As stated by the Fifth Circuit:

Federal courts are proper forums for the resolution of serious and substantial federal 

claims. They are frequently the last, and sometimes the only, resort for those who are 

oppressed by the denial of the rights given them by the Constitution and laws of the 

United States. Fulfilling this mission and the other jurisdiction conferred by acts of 

Congress has imposed on the federal courts a work load that taxes their capacity. 

Each litigant who improperly seeks federal judicial relief for a petty claim forces 

other litigants with more serious claims to await a day in court. When litigants 

improperly invoke the aid of a federal court to redress what is patently a trifling 

claim, the district court should not attempt to ascertain who was right or who was 

wrong in provoking the quarrel but should dispatch the matter quickly.

Dilworth, 81 F.3d at 617 (quoting Raymon v. Alvord Indep. Sch. Dist., 639 F.2d 257, 257 (5th Cir. 1981)). 

This reasoning is applicable in cases such as this one.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Court ORDERS that Phillips’s complaint is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions in this case are DISMISSED AS 

MOOT. 

SIGNED on July 8, 2020. 

_____________________________________

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00617-RP Document 23 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 3