IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHAMIM EBRAHIMI, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1906-E-BK

§

MYKILL FIELDS, 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. The Court granted Plaintiff Shamim Ebrahimi’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not issue process. Doc. 8. Upon review of the 

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

PREJUDICE as frivolous. 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2022, Ebrahimi, a Texas lawyer,

1

initiated this action by filing a 

complaint against Mykill Fields and 1,499 Defendants. Doc. 1; Doc. 6 (listing additional 1,499 

Defendants, including individuals and entities). Ebrahimi raises numerous allegations that are 

1 The Court takes judicial notice that on April 28, 2021, the 116th Judicial District Court of 

Dallas County suspended Ebrahimi from the practice of law for a 12-month period from May 15, 

2021, until May 14, 2022, and ordered him to pay $3,400 in restitution. See Comm’n for Lawyer 

Discipline v. Ebrahimi, No. DC-20-04562The disciplinary action is summarized on the Texas 

State Bar website at https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=711695

&article_id=4056921&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5 (last accessed on Aug. 30, 2022).

Case 3:22-cv-01906-E-BK Document 10 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 167
2

rambling and largely incoherent and border on the fantastic and delusional. He asserts that “the 

causes of action against Defendants are extensive” and are “broadly rooted in RICO violations, 

severe forms of trafficking in persons, anti-trust violations, invasion of privacy, unlawful takings, 

unjust enrichment, cyber-stalking, denial of equal protection, denial of due process, barratry, 

deceptive trade practices, and nuisance all under both Federal and State law where applicable.” 

Doc. 1 at 1. Specifically, Ebrahimi alleges that Defendants “subjected [him] to severe forms of 

trafficking and serious violent felonies almost consecutively for twenty-two years, dating back to 

approximately the year 2000 or when Plaintiff was sixteen years old.” Doc. 1 at 3. He avers 

Defendants “induc[ed] him to engage in commercial sexual acts” and “forced labor,” which 

“interfer[ed] with [his] liberty . . . .” Doc. 1 at 3. Ebrahimi also states Defendants “subjected 

[him] to no less than 5,000 actionable events,” including: 

constant electronic and visual surveillance, depriving Plaintiff of educational 

opportunity which includes harming Plaintiff’s high school education, . . . college 

education, and . . . legal education; depriving Plaintiff of social opportunity . . . 

employment opportunity . . . economic opportunity . . . subjecting [him] to wrongful 

criminal prosecution . . . two wrongful evictions . . . a wrongful attorney grievance; 

causing Plaintiff to suffer a brain aneurysm; rendering [him] a disabled individual; 

murdering Plaintiff’s dog . . . torturing [his] seven month old puppy . . . tampering 

with [his] medication . . . harming [his] reputation; forcibly sterilizing Plaintiff on 

live broadcast; sexually assaulting Plaintiff on live broadcast; and denying 

Plaintiff’s attempts to seek redress for the harms.

Doc. 1 at 3-4. 

Ebrahimi contends Defendants violated (1) civil and criminal statutes, constitutional

provisions, and Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Doc. 1 at 6-7, and (2) 

conspired to engage in racketeering activity, Doc. 1 at 7-11. He “seeks injunctive relief, 

declaratory relief, public disciplinary orders relating to professional misconduct, sanctions, [and] 

Case 3:22-cv-01906-E-BK Document 10 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 168
3

federal intervention . . . .” Doc. 1 at 1, 12; see also Doc. 5 (Sealed Ex parte Application for 

Injunctive Relief seeking both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction). 

II. ANALYSIS

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

statute provides 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 based on an indisputably 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, Ebrahimi has failed to state a 

cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed as such. As demonstrated supra, 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. 

Moreover, he presents no supporting legal authority for the claims he asserts. And to the extent 

Ebrahimi alleges criminal law violations, his claims lacks any legal basis. Doc. 1 at 6-7. 

“[D]ecisions whether to prosecute or file criminal charges are generally within the prosecutor’s 

discretion, and, as a private citizen, [the plaintiff] has no standing to institute a federal criminal 

prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal statute.” Gill v. Texas, 153 F. App’x 261, 262-63 

Case 3:22-cv-01906-E-BK Document 10 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 169
4

(5th Cir. 2005). Criminal statutes generally do not create a private right of action. For a private 

right of action to exist under a criminal statute, there must be “a statutory basis for inferring that 

a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.” Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79 

(1975), overruled in part by Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (1979); see Suter v. 

Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 363 (1992) (concluding that the party seeking to imply a private right of 

action bears the burden to show that Congress intended to create one). Here, Ebrahimi has pled 

nothing that would even come close to meeting that burden. 

Consequently, Ebrahimi’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 Ebrahimi’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.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

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

SO RECOMMENDED on September 26, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-01906-E-BK Document 10 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 170
5

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-01906-E-BK Document 10 Filed 09/26/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 171