IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

§

GORDON L. HALL

§

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-330

§

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW

§

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Gordon L. Hall, a federal prisoner currently confined at FCI Beaumont Low,

proceeding pro se, filed what appeared to be a Bivens-type action1against the Defendant, an

unidentified Warden at FCI Beaumont Low.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations

for the disposition of the case.

Background

This complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, entitled “Unopposed Verified Motion for

An Order to Show Cause and Injunctive Relief” (doc. #1). As the requested relief was less than the

clear, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to replead his cause of action, asking him to answer the

following questions:

1. What type of relief are you seeking in this case? You appear to allege that

you requested the Warden release your property, but it is unclear if you mean

you are requesting that he release your physical possessions or that he release

you from imprisonment. Please clarify. 

2. Was it your intent to contest your conviction and/or sentence in a writ of

habeas corpus or are you seeking monetary damages against individuals for

an alleged constitutional violation? Please clarify.

1

See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Case 1:23-cv-00330-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 67
Order to Replead (doc. #2). 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion for Injunctive Relief

on October 3, 2023 (doc. #4). In this petition, Petitioner states:

Dear Honorable Chancellor, I Gordon L. Hall, Petitioner an artificial person in the

above captioned case hereby file this “Amended Unopposed Verified Motion for an

Order to Show Cause and Injunctive Relief (“A.U.V. for an O.T.S.C. and I.R.”) to

clarify the nature of the suit and the relief demanded. I appreciate the Court’s

concern regarding the clarity of the initial filing and wish to provide additional

information to address this matter. 1.) This motion is not a habeas petition, it is

instead, a remedy sought for enforcement of the private administrative procedure

(“P.A.P”) and a violation of Petitioner’s rights under the United States Constitution,

Amendment V which the Warden, Respondent has tacitly acquiesced.

Purpose of this motion is to seek redress for the failure of the Warden, Respondent

to release the private property of the Gordon L. Hall, Petitioner an artificial person 

which is under the ownership of Petitioner, but in possession of the Warden,

Respondent. It is imperitive [sic] to emphasize that the suit does not pertain to the

confinement or release of Gordon L. Hall, Petitioner an artificial person, but concerns

the release of the private property (the physical body) associated with Gordon L.

Hall, Petitioner.

Relief Demanded: The relief demanded in this suit is a release of the physical body

upon failure by the Warden, Respondent to show cause why he should be permitted

to violate the law to the detriment of Gordon L. Hall, Petitioner an artificial person’s

rights and the P.A.P. between the parties. This A.U.V. for an O.T.S.C. and I.R.

solely focuses on the release of the private property (Petitioner’s physical body)

aspect of this matter). 

Amended Complaint (doc. #3). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is nonsensical, fanciful and delusional. Plaintiff claims to be an

artificial person which is under the “ownership” of Petitioner, but the possession of the Warden. 

Plaintiff affirmatively states he is not seeking habeas relief, but than proceeds to ask for the release

of the “private property” (the physical body) associated with Petitioner. This court cannot discern

the relief Plaintiff is requesting. 

Analysis

A review of the petition reveals that it is incomprehensible. A district court may dismiss a

complaint under screening if it concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997).

2

Case 1:23-cv-00330-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 68
A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. 

See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 1934 (5th Cir. 1997). A claim may be deemed to lack an

arguable basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional

in nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). 

This claim is without an arguable basis in fact or law. The present pro se litigant does not

present a logical set of facts which would enable the court to determine the factual or legal basis for

any cause of action. Instead, his complaint recites fantastic charges which are incomprehensible. 

Although these matters are real to him, the allegations are so fanciful that a reasonable person would

find them irrational and completely lacking any factual basis. Dismissal, therefore, is clearly

warranted under these circumstances. 

Recommendation

The present pro se complaint should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1).

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s report, any partymay serve

and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United 

3

Case 1:23-cv-00330-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 01/24/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 69
Servs. Auto. Assoc’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.

CIV. P. 72.

4

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 24th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00330-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 01/24/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 70