IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50925

Summary Calendar

CAROLYN BARNES, and Children, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL., 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CV-952

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carolyn Barnes appeals the dismissal of her in forma pauperis complaint 

as frivolous, as well as the ban on her filing future suits in the Western District 

of Texas without court approval. We AFFIRM.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50925 Document: 00515378142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50925

2

I. Background

In November 2018, Barnes “and her children” filed a nearly 500-page

complaint in the Western District of Texas, alleging claims against the United 

States, federal agencies, the state of Texas, state agencies, Texas counties and 

departments, federal courts of appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, more than 

seventy individuals, and others. Barnes alleged a general “deprivation of 

rights, privileges, protections, and immunities” under U.S. and Texas law by 

way of a “continuing conspiracy.” She included a laundry list of alleged 

nefarious schemes carried out by “the JOINT ENTERPRISE,” “the CARTEL,” 

“charlatans,” “sycophants,” “usurpers and interlopers,” “the black robe mafia,” 

and other bad actors. The allegations seem to center around Barnes’s 

disbarment several years ago and prior lawsuits involving Barnes.

According to Barnes’s brief on appeal, her complaint included eleven 

claims: (1) violations of the Violence Against Women Act;1 (2) violations of the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”);2 (3) violations 

of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; (4) violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”);3 (5) violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 

(“RFRA”);4 (6) “[b]reaches of fiduciary duty, contract, oath, and Fraud”;

(7) failure to prosecute; (8) “Stolen Claims” under Texas law and the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (9) “Continuing Conspiracy and Specific 

Performance”; (10) “Declaratory Judgment and Prospective Injunctive Relief”; 

and (11) attorney’s fees and costs. These claims were “based upon personal 

1 34 U.S.C. §§ 12291–12512.

2 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968.

3 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.

4 Id. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4.

 Case: 19-50925 Document: 00515378142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50925

3

knowledge or good faith information and belief.” Barnes further listed dozens 

of statutes on the face of her complaint and invoked other law throughout.

Barnes also moved, ostensibly, for the recusal of U.S. District Judges 

Yeakel and Pitman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Austin, all Fifth Circuit Judges, all 

Texas judges, and “all the judges of this Court” (presumably the district court),

and she requested “the appointment of a district judge outside the political and 

social influence of this cabal of cronies.” She based this motion on similar 

allegations of conspiracy and collusion.

Barnes subsequently filed a “supplemental original complaint” that 

purported to add new defendants “who capitalized on the criminal conspiracy 

and outlawry of Barnes” by destroying and stealing her property—but she did 

not seek to amend or replace her original complaint. She concurrently filed an 

emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction 

to prevent the destruction of evidence related to an incident involving the 

police that allegedly occurred at Barnes’s home in November 2018.

The magistrate judge, after allowing Barnes to proceed in forma 

pauperis, issued a report recommending dismissal of her suit as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because it “lack[ed] any arguable basis in law or 

fact.” The report also detailed Barnes’s history of frivolous litigation in state 

and federal courts and therefore recommended that Barnes be prohibited from 

filing future complaints in the district without court approval. See Murphy v. 

Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court adopted the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and thus dismissed the case 

with prejudice as frivolous, denied the recusal motion, dismissed the 

emergency motion as moot, and barred Barnes from filing future complaints in 

the Western District of Texas absent leave of court. Barnes timely appealed, 

then filed a considerably expanded amended notice of appeal.

 Case: 19-50925 Document: 00515378142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50925

4

II. Discussion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court may, in its discretion, dismiss 

an in forma pauperis complaint with prejudice “as frivolous if it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or fact.” McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th 

Cir. 1997). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law”—that is, it is legally 

frivolous—“if it is ‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,’ such as if 

the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not 

exist.” Id. (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). A factually 

frivolous complaint is made up of “allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and 

delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

We review the district court’s decision to dismiss under this statute for 

abuse of discretion. Id. The same is true for recusal decisions, Andrade v. 

Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2003), and restrictions on filing 

privileges, Potts v. Texas, 354 F. App’x 70, 71 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Barnes’s 

complaint as frivolous. Her claims are untethered from both law and fact and

are thus clearly meritless. The rest of the complaint is a list of general

grievances unrelated to any legally cognizable right. For similar reasons, this 

appeal is frivolous as well.5 See Buck v. United States, 967 F.2d 1060, 1062 

(5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). We also agree with the district court that Barnes’s

recusal motion was, like the complaint, “frivolous in all respects.” Lastly, the 

filing restriction was not an abuse of discretion: The magistrate judge’s report 

5 We will not consider the arguments that Barnes makes for the first time on appeal, 

like her claims that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and filing restrictions are unconstitutional. See 

Martco L.P. v. Wellons, Inc., 588 F.3d 864, 877 (5th Cir. 2009).

 Case: 19-50925 Document: 00515378142 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50925

5

recounts Barnes’s history as a vexatious litigant, which more than adequately 

supports this measure.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50925 Document: 00515378142 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/09/2020