- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SUSAN SCOTT, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3: 05-CV-1786-B

§

EXPERIAN, §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Motion for Sanctions

(doc. 9), filed October 6, 2005. After review of the pleadings and for the reasons discussed herein,

the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant with prejudice. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Susan Scott filed this action in Texas state court on August 19, 2005, seeking $40

million in damages for an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a). Defendant Experian removed

the case to this Court on September 6, 2005 on the basis of federal question and diversity

jurisdiction. After review of the pleadings, the Court had serious concerns regarding the legal basis

for Plaintiff’s claims and the possibility that they were frivolous. Therefore, the Court set a hearing

for September 28, 2005 and required Plaintiff to present legal authority and argument regarding

whether her state court Petition stated a non-frivolous cause of action against Defendant. (doc. 2)

The Order setting the hearing warned Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in dismissal of her

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01786-B Document 10 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 57
- 2 -

case. (Id.) On September 28, 2005, counsel for Defendant was present at the hearing; however,

Plaintiff did not appear. The Court then issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case without

prejudice, but giving her thirty days to show cause why her case should not be dismissed. (doc. 6)

The Court warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. 

(Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not attempted to demonstrate why her claims are not frivolous.

II. ANALYSIS

The Court has received only two documents from Plaintiff since this suit was removed. The

first, a document entitled “Disqualification of Judge’s,” filed September 12, 2005, appears to argue

that all federal court judges are biased against persons appearing pro se. (doc. 4) The second

document, filed October 3, 2005, argues that all the actions of this Court taken since the

“Disqualification of Judge’s” was filed are “void because of the corruption.” (doc. 8) Neither

document makes any particularized showing that this Court is biased or prejudiced in this case, and

to the extent Plaintiff seeks disqualification of the Honorable Jane J. Boyle, her request is DENIED.

As noted in this Court’s September 28, 2005 Order, Plaintiff’s allegations in her state court

Petition do not state a claim for relief, because 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a) is a criminal statute that does

not create a civil cause of action. See Dugar v. Coughlin, 613 F. Supp. 849, 852 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

Further, the statute criminalizes destroying government documents, while Plaintiff’s allegations

against Defendant, although unclear, appear to involve a dispute over a bank account. Thus, the

Court finds that Plaintiff’s state court Petition does not state a claim against Defendant, and Plaintiff

has not attempted to show that it does, despite being given multiple opportunities. Therefore, the

Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant with prejudice. 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01786-B Document 10 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 58
- 3 -

Defendant also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for her frivolous filing; however, the Court

DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED November 2nd , 2005

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01786-B Document 10 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 59