IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES FREDRICK ROBERTS,III, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-2214-X-BK

§

DALLAS COUNTY, 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 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 Charles Fredrick Roberts’ 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not issue process. Doc. 1. Upon review of the 

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

as frivolous.

1

I. BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2022, Roberts filed a pro se complaint against Dallas County, “Several 

Other Counties Nationwide,” and the Grand Prairie Jail. Doc. 1. As best the Court can glean 

from the complaint, Roberts complains that his First and Fourth Amendments “were and are still 

being violated.” Doc. 1 at 1. That said, the amended complaint is nonsensical, and the claims

asserted are irrational. Indeed, Roberts fails to state a cause of action or allege any coherent facts 

from which the Court can discern a cognizable cause of action. 

1 This action was transferred from the Fort Worth Division. Doc. 7. 

Case 3:22-cv-02214-X-BK Document 11 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 111
Page 2 of 4

By example, Roberts asserts that Defendants have violated his religious freedom and his 

family’s Fourth Amendment rights due to “sexual immorality.” Doc. 1 at 2. He alleges that he 

needs “a lifetime gag order on everything [and] everyone” and that he wants “to prevent 

terrorism” or “rape” of his loved ones. Doc. 1 at 1-2. Roberts avers that he has supporting 

authority in the scriptures and that he has “been subjegated [sic] to intense interrogations illegal 

in the USA which includes nudity and other sexual immoralities that God does not approve of.” 

Doc. 1 at 3; see also Attachment to Complaint, Doc. 10 and Doc. 10-1 (over 80 pages). 

As illustrated by the foregoing, Roberts fails to present a cognizable claim and his factual 

contentions are delusional. As such, this action should be dismissed as frivolous. 

II. ANALYSIS

Roberts’ complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That 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 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, Roberts has failed to state a cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed as 

such. Moreover, he offers no legal authority and, as illustrated here, his factual contentions are 

Case 3:22-cv-02214-X-BK Document 11 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 112
Page 3 of 4

clearly baseless and inadequate to support any cognizable claim and appear irrational and 

incredible. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Consequently, Roberts’ complaint should be dismissed 

with prejudice as factually and legally frivolous.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

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

dismissal, but leave is not required when he has already pled his “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke,

587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed herein Roberts has wholly failed to state or 

suggest a cognizable claim or any facts from which a cognizable claim can be inferred. Based on 

the most deferential review of his complaint, it is highly unlikely that, given the opportunity, 

Roberts 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 Roberts’ complaint be DISMISSED

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

SO RECOMMENDED on October 25, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-02214-X-BK Document 11 Filed 10/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 113
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-02214-X-BK Document 11 Filed 10/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 114