1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KESHA TERRY, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00633-L (BT)

§

DETENTION WORKERS, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Kesha Terry brings this pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). The Court granted Terry leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, but withheld issuance of process pending judicial 

screening. Ord. (ECF No. 6). Now, for the reasons stated, the Court 

recommends that the District Court dismiss this civil action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

Background

In her one-page, typed complaint, Terry alleges that she was subjected 

to police brutality during a false arrest. Compl. 1. Terry further alleges that 

she was sexually abused and assaulted by detention workers at the Dallas 

County Jail. Id. She contends that they stepped on her, held her down, and 

the supervisor applied handcuffs. Id. Terry further contends that this caused 

her to suffer “crushing pain in [her] body” and a “rib concussion.” Id. Terry 

concludes that she is now suffering “health” and emotional problems 

Case 3:22-cv-00633-L-BT Document 7 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 17
2

following this incident. Id. Terry requests that her allegations be taken 

“serious[ly],” and the officers involved “be held responsible for their 

actions.” Id.

Terry is no stranger to the Court. Indeed, she has filed ten pro se civil 

lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas over the past eleven years. And at 

least two of those lawsuits, Terry v. Supervisor et al., 3:17-CV-4-G-BT (N.D. 

Tex.) and Terry v. Detention Workers, et al., 3:21-cv-16-X-BH (N.D. Tex.), 

are duplicative of her claims here. This Court has admonished Terry more 

than once against filing frivolous lawsuits. On December 16, 2014, in Terry 

v. Oncor Delivery, et al., 3:14- cv-3496-P-BK (N.D. Tex.), the Court warned 

Terry that it may impose sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable 

to the Court, and filing restrictions, for filing frivolous lawsuits or otherwise 

abusing the litigation process. Despite that clear warning, Terry continued 

her vexatious litigation practices. So last year, in Terry v. Hoffman, 3:21-cv1736-X-BT (N.D. Tex.), the Court recommended sanctioning Terry and 

requiring pre-filing authorization. The District Court accepted that 

recommendation on March 24, 2022, and it ordered Terry to pay $150.00 

in sanctions and obtain pre-filing authorization before the Court accepts 

Case 3:22-cv-00633-L-BT Document 7 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 18
3

another pro se lawsuit from her.1 To date, Terry has not paid the $150.00 

sanction imposed in Terry v. Hoffman, 3:21-cv-1736-X-BT (N.D. Tex.).

Legal Standards and Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court may summarily dismiss a 

complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes 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). 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 court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are 

“clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The latter 

category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and 

delusional” scenarios, or that “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly 

incredible.” Id. at 33.

The Court liberally construes Terry’s complaint with all deference due 

a pro se litigant. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pro se

pleadings are “to be liberally construed,” and “a pro se complaint, however 

1

 Terry filed this lawsuit on March 18, 2022, while the sanction 

recommendation was pending, so she was not required to obtain 

authorization to file this action. However, that sanction will apply to all cases 

Terry attempts to file in the future. 

Case 3:22-cv-00633-L-BT Document 7 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 19
4

inartfully pleaded, 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”). But even under this liberal standard, Terry’s 

complaint is clearly duplicative of two other cases previously dismissed by 

this Court. See Terry v. Supervisor and Detention Workers, Case No. 3:17-

cv-4-G (BT); Terry v. Detention Workers, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-16-X-BH. 

And “[in forma pauperis] complaints may be dismissed as frivolous 

pursuant to § 1915[ ] when they seek to relitigate claims which allege 

substantially the same facts arising from a common series of events which 

have already been unsuccessfully litigated by the [in forma pauperis] 

plaintiff.” Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989); see also 

Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1988). Pro se litigants have “no 

license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, 

and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, 

N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). Terry’s duplicative claims are 

frivolous, and the Court should dismiss her complaint. 

Leave to Amend

Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted the opportunity to 

amend her complaint prior to a dismissal but leave to amend is not required 

when a plaintiff “has already pleaded [her] ‘best case.’” Brewster v. Dretke, 

587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed, Terry’s lawsuit is 

Case 3:22-cv-00633-L-BT Document 7 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 20
5

duplicative of two other lawsuits she filed in this Court, and it is frivolous. 

Therefore, this action is fatally infirm, and leave to amend would be futile. 

Conclusion

The Court should DIMISS Terry’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). 

SO RECOMMENDED. 

March 31, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation where 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 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00633-L-BT Document 7 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 21