UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

AZIZ AKULY NICHOLAS 

ALLEN MONTES SANTIUANUES,

aka NICHOLAS ALLEN MONTES,

 (Tarrant No. 0499187), 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 4:22-CV-966-P

 

FORT WORTH 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant.

 OPINION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A & 1915(e)(2)(B) 

This case is before the Court for review of the pleadings filed by pro-se

inmate plaintiff Aziz Akuly Nicholas Allen Montes Santiuanues (“Montes”)

under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).

After conducting that review, the Court finds that all Plaintiff’s claims must be

dismissed. 

I. BACKGROUND

Montes initiated this case with the filing of a civil-rights complaint form. 

Compl. 1-4, ECF No. 1. In an attempt to clarify Montes’s claims, the Court ordered

him to answer particular questions in the form of a more definite statement. Ord. for

More Definite Statement (MDS), ECF No. 13. In response, Montes filed a 

handwritten document the Court assumes to be his more definite statement. MDS 1-

6, ECF No. 13. The Court’s Order expressly listed particular questions and directed

Montes to “respond to the inquiries and questions by writing the answers in

paragraph s numbered to correspond to the number of each inquiry or request. Order

for MDS 4, ECF No. 12. Montes did not comply, as he did not separate out his

answers to the Court’s questions. Notwithstanding that failure to comply with the

Court’s order, the Court will still review the substance of Montes’s pleadings under

the applicable Court screening provisions.

Case 4:22-cv-00966-P Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 65
II. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER §§ 1915A and

1915(e)(2)(B) 

Montes is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma

pauperis. As a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Congress

enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a district court to review a

complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity, officer,

or employee as soon as possible after docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a). 

Because Montes is proceeding in-forma-pauperis, his operative pleadings are

also subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) and

§ 1915A provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion

thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(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 claim lacks an

arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes

“fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. Courts 

may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts

alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing

allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. As those

words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate

when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the

whollyincredible, whether or not there are judiciallynoticeable

facts available to contradict them. 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

III. ANALYSIS-FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided the

district courts guidance with regard to the resolution of “frivolous” claims:

Some claims are “so insubstantial, implausible, ... or otherwise

2

Case 4:22-cv-00966-P Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 66
completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal

controversy.” See Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida

Cty., 414 U.S. 661, 666, 94 S. Ct. 772, 39 L. Ed.2d 73 (1974).

Federal courts lack power to entertain these “wholly

insubstantial and frivolous” claims. Southpark Square [Ltd v.

City of Jackson, Miss.], 565 F.2d [338] at 343-44 [5th Cir.

1977)]. Determining whether a claim is “wholly insubstantial

and frivolous” requires asking whether it is “obviously

without merit” or whether the claim’s “unsoundness so clearly

results from the previous decisions of (the Supreme Court) as

to foreclose the subject.” Id. at 342. 

Atakapa Indian Creole Nation v. Louisiana, Et Al., 943 F.3d 1004, 1006

(5th Cir. 2019).

In this instance, the substantive allegations in Montes’s complaint and

more definite statement have risen to the level of the irrational or wholly

incredible. He writes such things as the Fort Worth Police Department

“depriving me of my property kicked me out of my home 2018, 2019, 29020,

2021, 2022.” Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. He also alleges he witnessed a “Joe

Ramirez” stabbing my Mother Grandparents lifeless.” Id. He also alleges

Ramirez or the FWPD “kicked me out the door in when I was asleep in 2011

Market [and] told me to get my personal or go to jail.” Id. In filing the MDS

in response to the Court’s questions, Montes wrote, in part: 

They pushed me off claiming to be lieing. Just check 8 witnesses

and property video footage. 

But the same gentleman Joe Ramirez was notified and an

extortion took place on the side ot the road with threats of courts,

and or death if I didn’t sign . . .printed out will. . . . To save my

life and to get out of jail on video footage in criminal court the

same Gentalman Joe Ramirez with Head of MHMR to remove

items from 2611 Market. I simply stated stay off the property.

Head of MHMR standing next to Joe Ramirez “Senior” states to

my I will not be leaving jail if I did not sign. So fooling them I

only printed Daniel Hernandez lawyer/Judge but state ‘this is not

going to work.’ Good I didn’t want nobody on properties 2611

3

Case 4:22-cv-00966-P Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 67
Market. Ft. Worth Tx 76106, My deed lies with Stella Income

Tax in Ft. Worth Tx. [sic]

MDS 2-3, ECF No. 13, 

The claims in this suit, like the claims in Atapaka, are factually

frivolous and “obviouslywithout merit.” In the Atapaka case, the Fifth Circuit

concluded by stating: “‘[t]he government should not have been put to the

trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble

of ‘adjudicating’ this meritless appeal.” Atapaka, 943 F.3d at 1007 (citing

Crain, 737 F.2d at 1418). The district court lacked jurisdiction “because the

claim[s] asserted [are] so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely

devoid of merit.’Southpark Square, 565 F.2d at 344.(cleaned up).” Atakapa,

943 F.3d at 1007. 

Outright dismissal for factual frivolity is appropriate “when the facts

alleged are fantastic or delusional scenarios or the legal theory upon which a

compliant relies is indisputablymeritless.” Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153,

156 (5th Cir.) (quotations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff Montes’s claims must

be dismissed under the authority of §§ 1915A and 1915(e). 

IV. CONCLUSION and ORDER

It is therefore ORDERED that all Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). 

SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2023.

______________________________ 

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 4:22-cv-00966-P Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 68