1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BOTIE HILLHOUSE, UNIDENTIFIED 

DEPUTIES, TONY DUNCAN, NANCY 

PERRYMAN, SCOTT MCKEE, KRISTIE 

LAFFERTY, KEVIN LAFFERTY, 

CELESTE RICHMAN, EDWARD 

RISNER, TDFS WORKERS, CLINT 

DAVIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JENNY 

PALMER, U.S. MARSHALS, GREGG 

ABBOTT, FBI EMPLOYEES, OFFICE 

OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EMPLOYEES, RENEE TOLIVER, SAM 

LINDSEY, BETH NUE, TEXAS 

RANGERS, BROOK FULKS, 

JONATHON STORMENT, C TINSLEY, 

CHIEF OF POLICE ATHENS TEXAS, 

UNKNOWN DEPUTIES ATHENS 

TEXAS, T CLAY, ATHENS CITY 

COUNSEL MEMBERS, CHIEF OF 

POLICE VAN ZANDT COUNTY, 

UNKNOWN DEPUTIES VAN ZANDT 

COUNTY, VAN ZANDT COUNTY 

JUDGE, VAN ZANDT COUNTY 

DISTRICT JUDGE, VAN ZANDT 

COUNTY SHERIFF, UNKNOWN 

DEPUTIES VAN ZANDT COUNTY, VAN 

ZANDT COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY, LISA CURRIE,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00301-JCB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 3
2

Plaintiff Jay Williams is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Henderson County Jail. On 

June 12, 2023, proceeding pro se, he filed the instant action complaining of violations pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) He has not paid the filing fee or submitted a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court shall review, before docketing if feasible or in any event 

as soon as practicable after docketing, any complaint in a civil action wherein a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a governmental entity. During its 

review, the court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof 

if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Section 1915A applies regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid a 

filing fee or is proceeding IFP. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The plain 

language of [§ 1915A] . . . indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner regardless of whether 

that prisoner is or is not proceeding IFP.”).

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Samford v. Dretke, 562 

F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). The Fifth Circuit has held that a complaint lacks an arguable basis

in fact when “the facts alleged are fantastic or delusional scenarios or the legal theory upon which 

a complaint relies is indisputably meritless.” Id. (quoting Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 

(5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, during the initial screening 

under section 1915A, a court may determine that a prisoner’s complaint is frivolous if it rests upon 

delusional scenarios or baseless facts—and dismiss the complaint. See Henry v. Kerr County, 

Texas, 2016 WL 2344231 *3 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2016) (“A court may dismiss a claim as factually 

frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or otherwise 

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, regardless of whether there are judicially 

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 4
3

noticeable facts available to contradict them.”) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 

(1992)). 

Moreover, a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted where it does 

not allege sufficient facts which, taken as true, state a claim which is plausible on its face and thus 

does not raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Montoya v. FedEx Ground 

Packaging Sys. Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim has factual plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows 

the court to draw reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See 

Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This plausibility standard is not akin to a probability standard; rather, 

the plausibility standard requires more than the mere possibility that the defendant has acted 

unlawfully. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (emphasis supplied). 

All well-pleaded facts are taken as true, but the district court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions. See Whatley v. Coffin, 

496 F. App’x 414 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 

(5th Cir. 2005)). Crucially, while the federal pleading rules do not require “detailed factual 

allegations,” the rule does “demand more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading offering “labels and conclusions” or a 

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice, nor does a complaint 

which provides only naked assertions that are devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. 

Plaintiff is no stranger to filing in federal court. Since May 1, 2023, he has filed twentynine cases in this district alone. See Case Nos. 6:23-cv-211, 6:23-cv-212, 6:23-cv-213, 6:23-cv214, 6:23-cv-215, 6:23-cv-216, 6:23-cv-217, 6:23-cv-218, 6:23-cv-219, 6:23-cv-220, 6:23-cvCase 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 5
4

221, 6:23-cv-222, 6:23-cv-223, 6:23-cv-224, 6:23-cv-225, 6:23-cv-226, 6:23-cv-227, 6:23-cv228, 6:23-cv-229, 6:23-cv-230, 6:23-cv-236, 6:23-cv-256, 6:23-cv-257, 6:23-cv-258, 6:23-cv260, 6:23-cv-263, 6:23-cv-298, 6:23-cv-300, and 6:23-cv-301. In the present case, Plaintiff sues 

Botie Hillhouse, Tony Duncan, Nancy Perryman, Scott McKee, Kristie Lafferty, Kevin Lafferty, 

Celeste Richman, Edward Risner, TDFW Workers, Clint Davis, District Attorney Jenny Palmer, 

U.S. Marshals, Gregg Abbott, unnamed FBI employees, unnamed Office of Inspector General 

Employees, Renee Toliver, Sam Lindsey, Beth Nue, Texas Rangers, Jonathon Storment, C Tinsley, 

Brook Fulks, Chief of Police of Athens, Texas, Uknown deputies, Lisa Currie, T Clay, Athens City 

Council members, a number of Van Zandt County employees, and a number of unidentified 

Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has already sued several of these individuals in this court and 

has been warned that repetitive filing of the same threadbare claims is malicious. See, e.g., Case 

No. 6:23-cv-212 (Doc. No. 3), citing Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding 

that under § 1915(d) it was “‘malicious’ for a pauper to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of 

another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff.”); Rhine v. Schmidt, 517 F. App’x 274 (5th 

Cir. 2013) (holding that a complaint that was duplicative of a previously filed claim in another case 

was malicious under § 1915A(b)(1) and should have been dismissed without prejudice); Scroggins 

v. Winn Corr. Ctr., 693 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[a] prisoner’s civil rights action is 

subject to dismissal as malicious if it repeats virtually identical claims based on a common series 

of occurrences.”). 

Plaintiff’s present allegations state only conclusory claims that his family has been denied 

celebrating federal holidays, that six members of his family are falsely imprisoned, that he has 

been denied prescription drugs for four days, that his daughter has been denied medical attention, 

and that the Sherriff who signed the affidavit against his daughter lacked personal knowledge. 

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 6
5

(Doc. No. 1, at 1.) As was previously explained to Plaintiff, he cannot engage in the unauthorized 

practice of law by bringing claims on behalf of other individuals. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Weber v. 

Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978). Thus, any claims brought on behalf of his daughter, Erin 

Dennis, including his allegations regarding lack of medical attention and knowledge regarding an 

affidavit, cannot be asserted by Mr. Williams as a representative in this action. Mr. Williams has 

not pleaded any allegations to establish “next friend” status on behalf his daughter and “individuals 

not licensed to practice law by the state may not use the ‘next friend’ device as an artifice for the 

unauthorized practice of law.” Weber, 570 F.2d at 514. Thus, the court finds that the filing of these 

claims on behalf of another individual is frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s only other allegations are that he and his family have been denied celebrating 

federal holidays together, his family members are falsely imprisoned, and that he was denied 

prescription drugs for four days. (Doc. No. 1.) Again, to the extent Mr. Williams intends to assert 

claims on behalf of his family members, he cannot do so. Weber, 570 F.2d at 514. Moreover, 

Plaintiff’s threadbare allegations fail to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In order to state a 

plausible claim for relief, a pleading must contain (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds 

for the court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Plaintiff must meet 

the Rule 8 requirements, and he must do so with particularity, providing sufficient facts supporting 

his allegations. See Twombly, 550 U.S at 545 (interpreting Rule 8); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

684–85 (applying Twombly generally to civil actions pleaded under Rule 8). Allegations that are 

implausible and unsupported by facts or evidence are insufficient to state a claim. Id. Plaintiff must 

include enough information to support each request for relief so that the named Defendants can 

understand the claims that are being brought against them and how they allegedly caused 

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 7
6

Plaintiff’s harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so here as he has failed to allege a constitutional violation 

or a basis for which the numerous named Defendants could be sued pursuant to § 1983. See Douthit 

v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 532 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[t]o establish a cause of action under § 1983, [] a 

party must [] show that the defendant, while acting under color of law, deprived him of a right 

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States”) (internal quotations omitted).

Having conducted screening pursuant to § 1915A, the court finds that the above-captioned 

action should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Although a court should allow a 

pro se plaintiff every reasonable opportunity to amend his pleadings, Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 

1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998), Section 1915A does not require that a plaintiff be given notice of an 

impending dismissal. Moreover, giving a plaintiff an opportunity to amend is not necessary if he 

has pleaded his “best case,” such that an amended claim would remain frivolous. See Norman v. 

Tex. Court of Criminal Appeals, 582 F. App’x 430, 431 (Mem) (5th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); 

Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Cockerham v. Jackson, No. CV 

SA-17-CA-463-DAE, 2017 WL 8794288, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2017) (finding that a show 

cause order advising the plaintiff of the deficiency of his allegations and giving the plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend would be pointless given the frivolous nature of the allegations). 

Given that Plaintiff has asserted a variety of the same threadbare legal conclusions in 

twenty-nine different cases filed before this court, the court has serious doubts as to Plaintiff’s 

desire or ability to assert a plausible claim in any of these actions. Plaintiff’s repeated filing of 

frivolous actions is an abuse of the judicial process. The dismissal of the above-captioned action 

shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 

383 (5th Cir. 1996) abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 

534–41 (2015).

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 8
7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, the court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1). The court further RECOMMENDS that the dismissal 

of the above-captioned case shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 

Adepegba, 103 F.3d 383. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. A 

party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that 

party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of June, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00301-JCB-JDL Document 2 Filed 06/28/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 9