IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

BRIANA A. BALTAZAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDR CONSUMER USA, and SURE 

SHOT RECOVERY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-467-MJT-CLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SUA SPONTE 

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72.

I. Legal Standard

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides for sua sponte dismissal of a complaint filed in forma 

pauperis if the court determines at any time the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state 

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Amrhein v. United States, 740 F. 

App’x 65, 66 (5th Cir. 2018) (“A district court must sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint in a civil 

action at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune.”). 

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325; Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). A claim lacks an 

Case 1:23-cv-00467-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 24
2

arguable basis in law when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when it describes 

“fantastic or delusional scenarios.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28; see also Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (stating the standard for determining frivolity under Section 

1915, which includes determination of whether the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” meaning 

that the allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.”). “As those words suggest, a 

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 

irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 

contradict them.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 

A pro se litigant and his pleadings are held “to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981)). That said, pro se status does not 

offer a plaintiff an “impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog 

the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” 

Farguson v. MBank Hous., N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).

II. Discussion

On December 21, 2023, pro se Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging Defendants improperly 

repossessed her car by failing to comply with Plaintiff’s unilateral terms set forth in her “First Tier 

Instructions,” “Second Tier Opportunity to Cure,” and “Third Tier Default Judgment” letters. 

(Doc. #1.) These letters purported to discharge Plaintiff of any debt she had on the car. (Id. at 6-

7.) In failing to agree to her unilateral terms, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Santander “refused to 

abide by Federal Reserve Act 16 and are in violation by Section 19.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff is 

requesting over six-eight million dollars in damages. (Doc. #1 at 11.) The undersigned granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on December 28, 2023. (Doc. #3.)

Case 1:23-cv-00467-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 25
3

The undersigned recommends dismissal because Plaintiff’s claims are improbable, 

attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, and devoid of merit. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2); Weatherton

v. Am.’s Most Wanted, No. 09-0111-BAJ-DLD, 2010 WL 4668965, at *1 (M.D. La. 2010) (citing 

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)). Plaintiff offers no valid legal basis supporting a cause 

of action against Defendants. Plaintiff briefly and vaguely references letters she sent to Defendant 

Santander, but fails to sufficiently state how these unilateral communications impact any existing 

debt obligations she may or may not owe. Notably, “the Federal Reserve Act does not create a 

private cause of action.” Escobar v. All. Credit Union, No. 5:23-CV-125-H-BQ, 2023 WL 

8720903, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2023), R&R adopted, No. 5:23-CV-125-H-BQ, 2023 WL 

8720693 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2023). Plaintiff’s alleged basis for legal relief is not only speculative 

but highly improbable. Swift dismissal is warranted to avoid further expenditure of judicial 

resources on a frivolous proceeding. See Kimberly v. Kardashian, No. 12-cv-1811, 2012 WL 

2947592, at *4 (W.D. La. July 9, 2012). 

III. Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this action be DISMISSED with

prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

IV.Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Case 1:23-cv-00467-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 02/27/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 26
4

magistrate judge is not specific. Without leave of court, objections are limited to eight (8) pages. 

E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72(c).

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 27th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00467-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 02/27/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 27