United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50676

Summary Calendar

Arthur Hooks, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Barack Hussein Obama, Former President; Mitchell 

Landry, White House Aid; Stephanie Lalonde, Public 

Defender; Michael Allen, District Attorney; Colorado 

Springs Police Department, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:21-cv-00827

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Arthur Hooks appeals the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which we review for abuse of 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022
No. 22-50676

2

discretion. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2009). A complaint 

is “frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Siglar v. Hightower, 

112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute accords judges 

the power to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly 

baseless,” which include those “claims describing fantastic or delusional 

scenarios.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989)) (analyzing § 1915(d), the predecessor 

to § 1915(e)(2)(B)). 

Hooks asserts a conspiracy in which former President Barack Obama 

and Mitchell Landreiu,1 currently Senior Advisor to the President, Joseph 

Biden, violated Hooks’s constitutional rights, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Federal Bribery Statute. Among other 

allegations, Hooks claims President Obama and Landrieu colluded to deny 

him an education and accommodations he was entitled to under the ADA.2

He seeks $200 million in damages and prays that President Obama and 

Landrieu be denied “presidential privileges” and prevented from ever 

holding office again.

In his Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge found that 

Hooks’s claims are “based on fantastic or delusional scenarios in which 

Hooks attributes wrongdoing to powerful people who have no connection to 

him or his situation” and should be dismissed as factually frivolous. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation after first conducting 

1 In his initial complaint, Hooks named Mitchell Landry as a defendant, which is 

how the defendant’s name appears on both the district court and appellate court docket; 

however, in subsequent pleadings and on appeal, Hooks refers to Landrieu by his correct 

name, Mitchell Landrieu. 

2 Hooks also makes several constitutional claims against a Colorado Springs public 

defender and district attorney, along with the Colorado Springs Police Department. 

Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2022
No. 22-50676

3

“a de novo review of the entire case file in this action” and finding that Hooks 

“fails to provide any arguable basis in law or in fact that supports his allegations.” After conducting our own review of the record, we detect no error in 

these determinations. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2022