Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AIDA R. CORONA VILLALOBOS SANDERS, §

Plaintiff, §

§ 3:05-CV-708-N

v. §

§

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL., §

Defendants. §

FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this

case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this unspecified civil action. She is proceeding pro se and the Court has

granted her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is mostly unintelligible. Her complaint is extensive and includes

allegations that Defendants have attempted to “commit Sensor Neuro Energy Mass Matter

Transmissions (SNEMMT) in our bodies, minds and souls.” (Compl. p.5). She also argues the

Aerospace Industry is “[t]rying to hide the BioChemical Warfare Against Humanity. 

Technology which is used to “Chucky,” or Possess Innocent Children and Adults. Technology

used to cause Molecular and Biochemistry disassembly of our natural genes.” (Id. at p.24). She

states there is a Satellite Space War Program that is being used to “Uplink and downlink

negative signals to my Childs (sic) brain.” (Id. at p.30). She states her daughter’s life is

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00708-N Document 7 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 97
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -2-

therefore in jeopardy. She seeks nine million dollars in damages. 

DISCUSSION

The terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) authorize a federal court to dismiss an action

in which the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis before service if the court determines that

the action is frivolous or malicious. Under this standard, a district court may review a complaint

and dismiss sua sponte those claims premised on meritless legal theories and those which clearly

lack any basis in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.C. 1728, 1733 (1992); 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.C. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). A finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the claims describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios," or "rise

to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 32-33,

112 S.C. at 1733. Plaintiff's allegations come within this doctrine and, accordingly, should be

dismissed with prejudice. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318-19 (5th Cir. 1993).

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends the complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

Signed this 6th day of June, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00708-N Document 7 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 98
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -3-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and

recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings,

conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after

being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,

conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not

consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written

objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from

a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct.

466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the

aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate

Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v.

United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00708-N Document 7 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 99