IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBBY DOYLE CALHOUN, §

#22977077, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1426-B-BK

§

CARL HAYS, ET AL., §

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 case was referred to the 

United States magistrate judge for judicial screening, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and 

applicable law, this action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as 

frivolous. 

I. BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2022, Robby Doyle Calhoun, a federal prisoner, filed a letter-complaint

against Probation Officer Darwin Shaw, Attorney Carl Hays, and “all Black Churches in Dallas,” 

including Full Gospel Holy Temple, Greater Harvest Church of God and Christ, Ervay Cedar 

Baptist Church, Greater Shiloh Baptist Church, and Potter’s House - TD Jakes. Doc. 3 at 1-2. 

He asserts the churches are responsible for “(1) mental cruelty, (2) physical oppression and (3) 

sexual harassment.” Doc. 3 at 1-2. Calhoun avers: “I need to do this because they will not 

relent or repent. And what they do know, is that ‘you must reap what you saw.’” Doc. 3 at 1-2. 

Calhoun raises similar claims against Shaw and Hays. Doc. 3 at 2, 4. He also sues Hays 

Case 3:22-cv-01426-B-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 33
2

for “inhumane treatment.” Doc. 3 at 2. Calhoun avers that Shaw and Hays are both “very filthy 

and corrupt in their attitudes and think[] that they are bullies who can get away with their abusive 

nature.” Doc. 3 at 2. Calhoun requests approximately $3 million in damages. Doc. 3 at 3. 

Calhoun is no stranger to this Court. In 1994 Calhoun was found not guilty by reason of 

insanity and committed in United States v. Calhoun, No. 3:92-CR-205-G; Crim. Doc. 13-1 at 1. 

In 2000, he was placed on conditional release supervision. Id. However, on June 16, 2022,

shortly before the complaint sub judice was filed, his conditional release was revoked and he was 

recommitted to the custody of the Attorney General for placement in a suitable facility in 

accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e). Crim. Doc. 16. The Court found that Calhoun had

“failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or 

treatment, and that his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to 

another person or serious damage to property of another.” Crim. Doc. 16 at 1-2. 

Upon review of the complaint sub judice, Calhoun fails to present a cognizable claim and 

his factual contentions are both delusional and deficient. As such, this action should be 

dismissed as frivolous.

II. ANALYSIS

Calhoun’s complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See also

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

1

 These statutes provide inter alia 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 

1 Calhoun did not file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in response to the Court’s 

deficiency order. Doc. 6. In his complaint, however, he states that he is financially indigent. 

Doc. 3 at 4. He has also filed two motions to appoint counsel reiterating that he is indigent. 

Doc. 9; Doc. 10. Thus, it is more efficient to assume that Calhoun seeks leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, than to require compliance 

with the Court’s filing requirements. 

Case 3:22-cv-01426-B-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 34
3

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, Calhoun has failed to state a cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed 

as such. He presents no supporting legal authority for the claim he asserts. Moreover, his factual 

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

his allegations border on the irrational and incredible. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.

Consequently, Calhoun’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as factually and 

legally frivolous.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

Ordinarily, “a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint 

before it is dismissed.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed 

herein Calhoun’s apparent claims are fatally infirm. Based on the most deferential review of his 

complaint, it is highly unlikely that, given the opportunity, he 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.

Case 3:22-cv-01426-B-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 35
4

V. CONCLUSION

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

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

SO RECOMMENDED on August 4, 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-01426-B-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 36