UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAKESHIA R. EDMOND, §

§

§

 Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-2487-B

§

DALLAS FBI, §

§

 Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is LaKeshia R. Edmond’s pro se complaint, filed on November 7, 2022. 

I. 

BACKGROUND

Edmond sues the Dallas FBI and a host of other defendants. Doc. 3. It appears she suffers

from paranoid schizophrenia. And, as in an earlier case, she raises allegations that are rambling and

largely incoherent and that border on the fantastic and delusional. Edmond complains among other

things about state lawsuits in Texas and Arkansas, alleged rapes, the stealing of her stimulus check,

a writ of possession and property that she owned, and an unlawful imprisonment in a homeless

shelter. She seeks $25 million in damages. 

With the complaint, Edmond encloses five handwritten supplements (totaling 40 pages) that

are difficult to decipher and for the most part nonsensical. Doc. 3-1 through Doc. 3-5. She also

submits 15 pages of exhibits, including random e-mails, state court pleadings, and an executed

constables return. Doc. 3-6. 

Although Edmond initially paid the filing fee, the payment was reversed due to insufficient

- 1 -

Case 3:22-cv-02487-B Document 4 Filed 12/21/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 65
funds. Thus, it is more efficient to assume that Edmond seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

to screen her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, than to require compliance with the Court’s filing

requirements. 

Upon careful review of the complaint, the Court concludes that Edmond fails to present a

cognizable federal claim and her factual contentions are both delusional and deficient. Thus, this

action should be dismissed at the screening stage as frivolous. 

II. 

ANALYSIS

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 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

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, Edmond has failed to state

a cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed as such. Her factual contentions are

clearly baseless and woefully inadequate to support any cognizable claim. And her allegations border

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

Consequently, Edmond’s complaintshould be dismissedwith prejudice as factually and legally

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-02487-B Document 4 Filed 12/21/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 66
frivolous.

III. 

LEAVE TO AMEND

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

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

Edmond’s 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.

III. 

SANCTION WARNING

Since the filing of this case, Edmond has sent the Court over 160 e-mails. The e-mails are

inappropriate, vulgar, and totally unrelated to this case. Among other things, Edmond references

video surveillance cameras, sex and sexual activities, celebrities watching her or making movies with

her, and releasing a book to Vladimir Putin. 

The Court also takes judicial notice that Edmond filed at least one other action that this

Court dismissed for failure to state a claim because the facts were clearly baseless and the allegations

fanciful and delusional. See Edmond v. Brap, LLC, No. 4:21-CV-1250-P-BP (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16,

2021).

 Based on the deluge of e-mails, Edmond is warned that sending persistent, unwarranted emails to the Court may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

Further, Edmond is cautioned that if she persists in filing frivolous actions, the Court may

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-02487-B Document 4 Filed 12/21/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 67
impose monetary sanctions and/or bar her from bringing any further action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(b)(2) and (c)(1) (providing for sanctions against pro se litigants or attorneys). Sanctions may be

appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. Mendoza v.

Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d

796, 802-03 (5th Cir. 2003) (a violation of any provision of Rule 11(b) justifies sanctions). Pro se

litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and

abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th

Cir. 1986). Moreover, litigants who abuse the judicial process are “not entitled to sue and appeal

without paying the normal filing fees--indeed, are not entitled to sue and appeal, period.” Free v.

United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989).

III. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is summarily DISMISSED WITH

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

FURTHER, Plaintiff is WARNED that sending repeated, unwarranted e-mails to the Court

may result in the imposition of sanctions. And if Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous, baseless actions,

the Court may impose monetary sanctions and/or bar her from bringing any further action.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED: December 21, 2022.

______________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 4 -

Case 3:22-cv-02487-B Document 4 Filed 12/21/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 68