IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL ANTHONY GOODLOE, JR., §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-2065-B-BK

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 September 16, 2022, Michael Anthony Goodloe, Jr, filed a one-page, pro se 

complaint against the United States and the Dallas County Courts. Doc. 3 at 1. It includes 38 

pages of exhibits—some that appear to be based on the so-called “sovereign citizen” ideology. 

Doc. 3 at 2-39. The complaint is difficult to decipher and the allegations clearly irrational. 

Goodloe never states a cause of action or alleges any coherent, plausible facts from which the 

Court can discern a cognizable cause of action. By way of example, Goodloe pleads the 

following ambiguous sentence fragments: 

Completed Commercial Lein filed and matured – Administrative 27 million FRN

Kings Ransom x 3 – Denton County Jail

Case 3:22-cv-02065-B-BK Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 49
2

Universal Max 1 – Denton County Jail = $27,000,000.00.

Incarcerated – Assumed Names forms filed 

and accepted in Denton County. Considered a good and masonit King and free 

mason.

Exposure to alien technology and other transforming

Free mason was kidnapped without consent. 

I love my country and society of free thinking people. 

Begger stage finished and complete No need for further test

Anan FBI Agent Badge Number 777 and CIA Agent Badge Number 77777

Doc. 3 at 1 (errors in original). 

II. ANALYSIS

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

1

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

as such. As demonstrated supra, his pleadings a fatally deficient—lacking legal and factual 

1 Goodloe’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is deficient. He answers most questions with 

either “0” or “n/a.” Doc. 4. Thus, it is more efficient to dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2), than to require compliance with the Court’s filing requirements. 

Case 3:22-cv-02065-B-BK Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 50
3

bases. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Consequently, Goodloe’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 Goodloe’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. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

The Court takes judicial notice that earlier this year, three of Goodloe’s causes of actions 

were dismissed as frivolous, and he was warned that if he continues to file frivolous cases in this 

Court, sanctions and/or a filing bar may be imposed. See Goodloe v. Dallas County Courts 

Principle Agent, No. 3:22-CV-165-X-BT, 2022 WL 1092931, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2022); 

Goodloe v. Parkland Medical Jail Staff, No. 3:22-CV-6-E-BT, 2022 WL 1032501, at *1 (N.D. 

Tex. Apr. 6, 2022); Goodloe v. U.S. District Court Northern Div., No. 3:22-CV-62-X (BT), 2022 

WL 4100830, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2022). Subsequently, however, Goodloe filed three more 

cases, including this one. 

The Federal courts have the inherent authority “to protect the efficient and orderly 

administration of justice and . . . to command respect for the court’s orders, judgments, 

procedures, and authority,” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993), and sanctions may be 

appropriate when, as here, a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. 

Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)&(c)(1) 

Case 3:22-cv-02065-B-BK Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 51
4

(authorizing sanctions against pro se litigants). 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); In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993).

Based on Goodloe’s filing history and his pattern of filing frivolous actions, he should be 

barred from filing future actions in forma pauperis in this or any other federal Court without first 

obtaining leave of court. 

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). Further, Goodloe should be 

BARRED from filing future actions in forma pauperis in this or any other federal court without 

first obtaining leave of court to do so, and any case filed, removed, or transferred without the 

applicable filing fee, in which he is plaintiff, should not be reviewed by the Court. 

SO RECOMMENDED on September 26, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-02065-B-BK Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 52
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-02065-B-BK Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 53