IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAWANDA LEWIS, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-1794-M-BK

§

USA SUPREME, §

DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United 

States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. The Court granted Plaintiff Lawanda Lewis’ 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not issue process. Doc. 6. Upon review of the 

relevant pleadings and applicable law, this action should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 

as frivolous.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2022, Lewis filed a pro se complaint against the USA Supreme. Doc. 3 at 

1. The complaint is difficult to decipher and clearly irrational. Lewis never states a cause of 

action or alleges any coherent facts from which the Court can discern a cognizable cause of 

action. In the one-paragraph complaint, Lewis pleads in toto: 

Arkansas was leading for these crimes, I was kidnapped as 1 month old from my 

birth parents. Regional Corporal Chief of Police name is Lisa and Charles, and my 

land and real estate corporations of business are stolen, my signature from my 

personal bank acct toke care of everything that’s stolen it was forgery ignorance.

Doc. 3 at 1 (misspelling and grammatical errors in original). 

Case 3:22-cv-01794-M-BK Document 8 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 15
Page 2 of 4

In the Civil Cover Sheet, Lewis checks all nature of suit codes and further describes her 

cause of action as “rape too, thief by merchant too.” Doc. 3 at 2. 

II. ANALYSIS

Because Lewis is proceeding in forma pauperis, her complaint is subject to screening 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides in part for the sua sponte dismissal of a 

complaint if the Court finds that it is frivolous or malicious. A complaint is 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); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

325 (1989). The latter category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and 

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

Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 

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 this most liberal construction, 

however, Lewis has failed to state a cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed as 

such. 

Lewis presents no supporting legal authority for the claims she asserts. Moreover, her 

factual contentions are clearly baseless and woefully inadequate to support any cognizable claim, 

and her allegations appear irrational and incredible. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Consequently, 

Lewis’ complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as factually and legally frivolous.

Case 3:22-cv-01794-M-BK Document 8 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 16
Page 3 of 4

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

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

dismissal, but leave is not required when she has already pled her “best case.” Brewster v. 

Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed here, Lewis’ apparent claims are 

fatally infirm. Based on the most deferential review of her complaint, it is highly unlikely that, 

given the opportunity, she could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the Court 

concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and cause 

needless delay.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Lewis’ complaint be DISMISSED

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

SO RECOMMENDED on August 22, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-01794-M-BK Document 8 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 17
Page 4 of 4

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-01794-M-BK Document 8 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18