IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

§

CHRISTOPHER LONG

§

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-30

§

MICHELLE WEST, JUDGE, et al.,

§

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Christopher Long, an inmate currently confined at the Hodge Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following defendants: Michelle West, Judge,

Ashely Homes, Attorney, Unknown Spangler, Sergeant, Unknown Rayson, Lieutenant Unknown

Rollins, Warden Unknown McNeil.

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

The complaint was filed January 5, 2024 (doc. #1). Plaintiff’s complaint is nonsensical,

fanciful and delusional. In the Statement of Claim section, Plaintiff states the following:

I was not in Port Arthur, Tx win [sic] I was Sturgis at 3 week envents [sic]. I had

pass [sic] ride up South Dekato [sic] Black Hills 2011 they said have group biker up

there 2,400 mile there 2,400 back home and sent undercover cop byChevy truck and

report that beer saved to me when I was drinking Monster or Mountin Dew’s [sic]. 

But also drink Gator Rade [sic], stayed at hotel in close’s Biker Ralley [sic]. I did

every drug test gave me it was negtive [sic] and pissted [sic] clean hole [sic] time!

Id. For relief, Plaintiff states he wants to back home to take care of his daughters and his mother. 

Id.

Case 9:24-cv-00030-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 03/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 18
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).

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 party may 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

2

Case 9:24-cv-00030-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 19
conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

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.

3

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 8th day of March, 2024.

Case 9:24-cv-00030-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 03/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 20