IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JORDAN WILLIAMS, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-787-L-BK

§

LOCAL ENTITIES, §

DEFENDANTS. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se civil action was 

referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of 

findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. Review reveals that Jordan’s

operative complaint is frivolous, lacking in any legal or factual basis. Thus, it should be 

DISMISSED sua sponte.

1

I. BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2022, Jay E. Williams (“Williams”) filed a pro se letter-pleading on behalf of 

his adult son Jordan Williams (“Jordan”), also a pro se litigant, against unspecified “Local 

Entities” and governments. Doc. 3 at 1. Williams asserts that these Local Entities “are 

endangering Jordan Williams’ life” through their actions and inactions. Doc. 3 at 1. He avers 

1 Although Jordan failed to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form, it is 

more efficient to dismiss the complaint than to require compliance with this Court’s filing 

requirements. Further, because Jordan also signed the operative complaint, the Court need not 

address whether Williams is authorized to file on Jordan’s behalf. See Speed v. America’s 

Wholesale Lender, No. 3:14-CV-3425-L, 2014 WL 4755485 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 24, 2014)

(Lindsay, J.) (citing Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978) (finding executed powers 

of attorney did not authorize an unlicensed attorney to file pleadings or papers on behalf of 

another as a “next friend”).

Case 3:22-cv-00787-L-BK Document 29 Filed 09/25/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 922
Page 2 of 5

that Jordan suffers from Addison’s Disease and recently “experienced a death of a nephew.” 

Doc. 3 at 1. Williams asks for “the highest possible legal (sovereign) immunity” for Jordan and 

his family members “to prevent retaliation and to keep [Jordan] out of the hospital.” Doc. 3 at 1.

In response to the second deficiency order, the Williamses filed a second amended 

complaint (the operative complaint) against Local Entities and Does 1-100, which contains the 

following title: “Fraud, Neglect of Duty, ADA violations, Judiciary Act of 1789, Breach of Oath 

of Office, And Other Unlawful Acts against the Declaration of Independence and The 

Constitution of The United States of America.” Doc. 21 at 1. Although the operative complaint 

lists Jordan as the sole plaintiff, both Williams and Jordan signed it. Doc. 21 at 1, 21. 

The operative complaint is not a model of clarity. It is over 20 pages long and pleads a 

litany of events involving numerous individuals and entities and spanning a couple of years. The 

allegations are rambling and largely incoherent, and border on the fantastic and delusional. Doc. 

21 at 1-24. 

As best as the court can glean from the complaint, Jordan seeks to hold “PEOPLE 

ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS” and makes a “DEMAND FOR EMPANELMENT 

OF GRAND JURY[.]” Doc. 21 at 6. He states under “PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF 

CRIMINAL ACTS BY DEFENDANTS/OPPOSING PARTIES”:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts set forth above as if set forth here in 

full. 129. Plaintiff, Jordan Williams is seeking compliance with title 42 U.S.C. § 

1987 (Prosecution of violation of certain laws) that authorizes and requires, at the 

expense of the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating 

any of the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) 

(b) (c) and§ 1968 (Civil investigative demand) and to cause such persons to be 

arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or 

the territorial court having cognizance of the offense. See Pub. Law 106-274, Sec. 

4 (d), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 804.

Doc. 21 at 6.

Case 3:22-cv-00787-L-BK Document 29 Filed 09/25/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 923
Page 3 of 5

Jordan includes a copy of the “Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,” Doc. 21 at 

10-15, he a lengthy list of Texas and U.S. Constitutional provisions, state and federal criminal 

statutes, and civil rights and human rights statutes, Doc. 21 at 15-21. As relief, the Complaint 

states only: “Jordan Williams prays that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 

the United States of America prevail.” Doc. 21 at 21. 

II. ANALYSIS

Based on his filings, the Court presumes that Jordan seeks leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. As such, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That 

statute provides for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that it (1) is 

frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous 

when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law when it is premised “on an indisputably 

meritless legal theory,” Id. at 327, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it 

does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)

(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under the most liberal construction, 

however, Jordan’s complaint is frivolous. 

Case 3:22-cv-00787-L-BK Document 29 Filed 09/25/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 924
Page 4 of 5

Even under the most deferential review, Jordan has failed to state a cognizable legal 

claim or anything that can be construed as such. As demonstrated supra, his factual contentions 

are clearly baseless and woefully inadequate to support any legal claim. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 

33. 

Moreover, “decisions whether to prosecute or file criminal charges are generally within 

the prosecutor’s discretion, and, as a private citizen, [the plaintiff] has no standing to institute a 

federal criminal prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal statute.” Gill v. Texas, 153 F.

App’x 261, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2005). Ordinarily, criminal statutes do not create a private right of 

action. For a private right of action to exist under a criminal statute, there must be “a statutory 

basis for inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.” Cort v. Ash, 

422 U.S. 66, 79 (1975), overruled in part by Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 

(1979); see Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 363 (1992) (concluding that the party seeking to 

imply a private right of action bears the burden to show that Congress intended to create one). 

Here, Jordan has pled nothing that would even come close to meeting that burden. Thus, to the 

extent Jordan alleges criminal law violations, his claims also lack legal basis. 

III. LEAVE TO AMEND 

Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint prior to 

dismissal, but leave is not required when he has already pled his “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke,

587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As outlined here, Jordan’s apparent claims are fatally 

infirm. Based on the most deferential review of his operative complaint, it is highly unlikely 

that, given the opportunity, he could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Additionally, the 

Court has already given him an opportunity to amend the complaint. See Doc. 5; Doc. 13

(requiring Jordan to cure various deficiencies and file inter alia a complaint in compliance with 

Case 3:22-cv-00787-L-BK Document 29 Filed 09/25/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 925
Page 5 of 5

Fed. R. Civ. 8(a)). Thus, the Court can only conclude that he has already pled his best case. 

Under these circumstances, granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

SO RECOMMENDED on September 25, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See 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) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-00787-L-BK Document 29 Filed 09/25/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 926