1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SERAFINA LICCARDI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

IAN SHORR; PARAMOUNT 

PICTURES/VIACOM; JEFF BEZOS; 

AMAZON PRIME VIDEO; and 

AMAZON.COM WORLDWIDE 

DISTRIBUTION, 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 3:22-cv-02423-K-BT

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are the following post-judgment motions filed by pro se 

Plaintiff Serafina Liccardi: (i) Motion for Leave to File Argument for and to Amend 

Complaint (ECF No. 54); (ii) Motion to File Yet Another Request for Marshal 

Service to Find and Serve Ian Shorr Notice and Waiver Diligence (ECF No. 55); 

and (iii) Motion to File Demand for Redress of all my Claims (ECF No. 56). For the 

reasons explained below, the District Judge should DENY the Motions and issue 

sanctions against Liccardi. 

This case arises out of Liccardi’s allegations that Defendants plagiarized her 

autobiography in violation of federal intellectual property laws. See Am. Compl. 

(ECF No. 30). On January 3, 2024, the District Judge accepted the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed 

Case 3:22-cv-02423-K-BT Document 57 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 548
2

all of Liccardi’s claims with prejudice. FCR (ECF No. 45); Order Accepting (ECF 

No. 47); Judgment (ECF No. 48). Because this is not Liccardi’s first lawsuit raising 

the same allegations, the Court also warned Liccardi that she could be subject to 

sanctions if she persisted in filing duplicative and vexatious lawsuits. See Order 

Accepting (highlighting at least five lawsuits in this District that Liccardi has filed

and noting that all five have been dismissed upon a finding of frivolity, failure to 

prosecute, or failure to state a claim). 

Liberally construed, Liccardi’s latest motions appear to seek relief from the 

Court’s final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Using 

aggressive and offensive language directed at the Court, the Clerk’s office, and the 

U.S. Marshal, Liccardi demands that “all of [her] requests are to be reconsidered 

and granted with [the Court’s] own forms . . . in plain language – not in case law 

format so a retard can’t read or understand it.” Mot. File Arg. 2. (emphasis in 

original). Liccardi states that “it is disgusting to sit in a position of power and do 

nothing but relish in the victimization of vulnerable people for [the Court’s] own 

financial coffer gains,” insisting that “an illegal immigrant gets treated better than 

a retard here.” Id. Liccardi does not, however, allege that the Court’s entry of 

judgment was a mistake, that there is newly discovered evidence or fraud that 

would justify relief from the judgment, or that the judgment is void. In other words, 

she includes no grounds by which the Federal Rules would allow her relief from 

the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6) (listing reasons for which a court 

Case 3:22-cv-02423-K-BT Document 57 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 549
3

may relieve a party from a final judgment). The District Judge should therefore 

DENY the Motions for relief from the final judgment. 

The District Judge should also impose monetary sanctions on Liccardi. 

District courts possess the inherent power to levy sanctions in response to abusive 

litigation practices. In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). 

And although Liccardi insists that she deserves reasonable accommodation 

because she cannot afford an attorney, “one acting pro se has no license to harass 

others, clog the judicial machine with meritless litigation, and abuse already 

overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 

(5th Cir. 1986). The Court has already warned Liccardi that further vexatious 

filings could result in monetary sanctions. Order Accepting 1–2. Given Liccardi’s 

aggressive tone directed at the Court, the Clerk’s office, and the U.S. Marshal in 

her recent filings and her repeated attempts to continue litigating a case that has 

been dismissed with prejudice, the District Judge should conclude that a monetary 

sanction of $100, payable to the Clerk’s office, is warranted. See Gelabert v. 

Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (imposing a monetary 

sanction of $10 on a pro se prisoner litigant and explaining that “like every other 

pastime, recreational litigation has its price; such sanctions as this are imposed for 

the very purpose of causing the [litigant] . . . to think twice before cluttering our 

dockets with frivolous or philosophical litigation”); Farguson, 808 F.2d at 360 

(imposing a $500 sanction on a pro se civil litigant for his repeated frivolous and 

irrational filings).

Case 3:22-cv-02423-K-BT Document 57 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 550
4 

SO RECOMMENDED. 

April 29, 2024

 

REBECCA RUTHERFORD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). To be specific, 

an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where 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 Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:22-cv-02423-K-BT Document 57 Filed 04/29/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 551