1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RECEE MAE REED, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 3:22-cv-00816-B (BT)

§

FAIRWAY TOWNHOMES HOUSING §

LP, et al., §

 Defendants. §

RECEE MAE REED, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 3:22-cv-00817-L (BT) 

§

T. LYONS, et al., §

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Recee Mae Reed brings these two pro se civil actions, but she 

failed to comply with a court order and failed to state a claim in both cases. 

The Court should therefore dismiss Case Numbers 3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 

3:22-cv-817-L-BT. Reed is warned that if she continues to file frivolous cases 

in this Court, sanctions and/or a filing bar will be imposed. 

Background

Reed has filed six pro se civil lawsuits in the Northern District of 

Texas, with five of those lawsuits filed since July 8, 2021. Two of the six 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 42
2

lawsuits, Case Numbers 3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 3:22-cv-817-L-BT, were 

referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge. Of the six 

lawsuits, on September 25, 2013, Case Number 3:12-cv-4065-K-BK was 

dismissed with prejudice under Rule 37 as a discovery sanction and under 

Rule 41 for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

for failure to prosecute. On August 6, 2021, Case Number 3:21-cv-1594-XBK was summarily dismissed with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). On December 23, 2021, Case Number 3:21-cv-2863-L-BK was 

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

On April 12, 2022, Reed filed Case Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT in this 

Court. Along with her complaint, she filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT, ECF No. 4.) Reed’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis was signed and dated, but it was otherwise 

incomplete. On April 18, 2022, Reed filed her first amended complaint. 

(Case Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT, ECF No. 5). On April 18, 2022, the Court 

issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order, which ordered Reed to file a 

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and pay 

the $402.00 filing fee or file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(Case Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT, ECF No. 6.) The order informed Reed that 

failure to respond and cure the deficiencies by May 19, 2022, could result in 

a recommendation that her case be dismissed. On April 25, 2022, Reed filed 

her second amended complaint, but it failed to comply with Rule 8(a). (Case 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 43
3

Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT, ECF No. 7.) On April 25, 2022, Reed filed a 

conforming motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv816-E-BT, ECF No. 8.) Two days later, the Court granted her motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv-816-E-BT, ECF No. 9.) 

On April 12, 2022, Reed filed Case Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT in this 

Court. Along with her complaint, she filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but Reed’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed on a 

form issued by the State of Texas. (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT, ECF No. 

4.) On April 18, 2022, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order, 

which ordered Reed to file a complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a) and pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a proper motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT, ECF No. 5.) 

The order informed Reed that failure to respond and cure the deficiencies by 

May 18, 2022, could result in a recommendation that her case be dismissed. 

On April 18, 2022, Reed filed her first amended complaint, but it failed to 

comply with Rule 8(a). (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-B-BT, ECF No. 6.) That 

same day, Reed returned the instructions she received from the Court as a 

non-prisoner pro se plaintiff with nonsensical handwriting added to the 

document. (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-B-BT, ECF No. 7.) On April 25, 2022, 

Reed filed her second amended complaint, and it also failed to comply with 

Rule 8(a). (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-B-BT, ECF No. 8.) The same day, Reed 

filed a conforming motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 44
4

3:22-cv-817-L-BT, ECF No. 9.) Two days later, the Court granted Reed’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT, ECF 

No. 10.) 

Legal Standards and Analysis

A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

In both of her cases, Reed failed to obey a court order and also failed 

to prosecute. Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for 

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any 

court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 

2018) (citing McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988)

(per curiam)); accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 

438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. 

Thaler, 450 F. App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to 

prosecute). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s 

inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the 

disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 

(1962)). 

Reed has failed to comply with the Court’s orders in Case Numbers 

3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 3:22-cv-817-L-BT. In both cases, she failed to file a 

complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a), which requires a short and plain 

statement of a claim showing she is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 45
5

The Court cannot screen these two cases, and thus litigation cannot proceed 

in these cases, until Reed cures these deficiencies. Reed has failed to 

prosecute her lawsuits and also failed to obey court orders. Dismissal 

without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. Therefore, the 

Court should dismiss Case Numbers 3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 3:22-cv-817-LBT under Rule 41(b). 

B. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Next, the Court will screen both of Reed’s cases. Her pleadings are 

subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That section 

provides that 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). 

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must 

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), and must plead 

those facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level[.]” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 46
6

The Court liberally construes Reed’s filings with all possible 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 

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 

(1976)); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam) 

(noting that allegations in a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, 

are held to less stringent standards than form pleadings drafted by lawyers); 

Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice”). 

Even under this most liberal construction, however, Reed’s pleadings fail to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In Case Number 3:22-cv-816-B-BT, on April 25, 2022, Reed filed her 

second amended complaint. 2d Am. Compl. (ECF No. 7). Reed submitted 

her second amended complaint on the appropriate form for a pro se civil 

complaint, but she fails to provide complete thoughts, and she generally 

does not write in complete sentences. Where the form directed Reed to set 

forth her claims, she has written only the following, “Location: White Rock 

Hills Townhomes, Office Assit [sic] Associates mishandle, lease status / DL 

/ Employment Rental History including, Rental Charges, Claims, medical 

history, Social Security Payments”. Id. 4. It is not clear how these statements 

relate, and Reed does not explain. The form complaint directed Reed to 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 47
7

attach additional pages, if necessary, but she did not provide additional 

pages or attachments to clarify her assertions. 

On April 25, 2022, Reed filed her second amended complaint in Case 

Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT. 2d Am. Compl. (ECF No. 8). Her second 

amended complaint is filed on the appropriate form, but even liberally 

construed, she has failed to state a claim. Where the form directed Reed to 

set forth the statement of her claims, she has written only random words and 

phrases. For instance, she has written, “Tax Credit For low income, SR” and 

“(Leasing Agents).” Id. at 4. Reed has also written, “Continued, to Identity 

Theft All Combine” and “without Life threaten disability.” Id. Finally, Reed 

has written, “Legal Physical Damages – Local DPD – writes multi Traffic 

Tickets.” Id. It is not clear how these seemingly unrelated words, phrases, 

and concepts are logically connected. And Reed fails to provide any sort of 

explanation. The form complaint directed Reed to attach additional pages, 

if necessary, but she declined to provide additional pages or attachments to 

clarify her thoughts. 

In sum, Reed’s pleadings in Case Numbers 3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 

3:22-cv-817-L-BT fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Case 

Numbers 3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 3:22-cv-817-L-BT should therefore be 

dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) because she fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 48
8

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

complaint prior to dismissal. However, leave to amend is not required when 

the plaintiff “has already pleaded his ‘best case.’” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 

F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). In both cases, Reed filed a complaint, a 

first amended complaint, and a second amended complaint. (Case Number 

3:22-cv-816-B-BT, ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7; Case Number 3:22-cv-817-L-BT, ECF 

Nos. 3, 6, 8.) The Court finds that Reed has pleaded her best case in both 

cases and granting leave to amend at this time would result in needless delay 

and an exercise in futility. See Cruz v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2012 WL 1836095, 

at *7 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2012) (concluding that plaintiffs “have pled their 

best case and granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless 

delay” where plaintiffs did not file a response to motion to dismiss or request 

to amend pleadings).

C. Sanctions 

Last, the Court will address the extent to which Reed’s frivolous 

lawsuits in this Court warrant sanctions. As noted, Reed has filed five pro se

civil lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas since July 8, 2021. When 

frivolous filings are received and addressed by a court, it impinges on the 

court’s limited resources, and a court has a responsibility to ensure its 

resources are allocated in a manner to promote the interests of justice. See 

Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 3 (1992) (per 

curiam) (“Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 49
9

repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited 

resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources 

are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”) (quoting In re 

McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam)); see also Mendoza v. 

Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993) (review of a trial court’s sanctions 

against vexatious or harassing litigants is addressed under the lenient 

standard of abuse of discretion standard) (citing Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 

F.2d 746, 747 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); Farguson v. MBank Houston, 

N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986) (Pro se litigants have “no license to 

harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and 

abuse already overloaded court dockets.”). Reed is advised that her frivolous 

filings in this Court are an abuse of this Court’s limited resources. 

Therefore, Reed is warned that if she continues to file frivolous 

pro se cases in this Court, sanctions and/or a filing bar may be 

imposed.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court should DISMISS Case Numbers 

3:22-cv-816-B-BT and 3:22-cv-817-L-BT without prejudice under Rule 

41(b) for failure to comply with a court order and also DISMISS both cases 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. 

Case 3:22-cv-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 50
10

SO RECOMMENDED.

April 29, 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-00816-B-BT Document 10 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 51