Court Opinion

ID: 9913933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 01:00:35.834152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:34.657183
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50640        Document: 00517015879             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50640
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              December 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Caroline S. Barnett,                                                               Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Joseph Chacon, Chief of Police; Delia Garza, County Prosecutor;
   Andy Brown, Executive Chief Judge; Kirk Watson, City of Austin
   Mayor; Sylvester Turner, Mayor of Houston; Family of
   Crystal Ramirez; Madam Ruth Ann LNU; Amy Starnes,
   Director of Public Affairs; Blake Hawthorne, Clerk of the Supreme
   Court of Texas; The Hull Firm; Jesus Garza, City Manager; Jose
   Garza, District Prosecutor; HEB Corporate Management
   Group; Joe Weeden; Anderson Merchandisers, L.L.C.,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:23-CV-831
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50640      Document: 00517015879           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                                     No. 23-50640

                                 I. Background
          Caroline Sue Barnett, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
   order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint pursuant to
   28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) on grounds that her complaint was entirely frivolous and
   lacked an arguable basis in law or fact to support a claim for relief.
          In the proceedings below, Barnett asserted claims against numerous
   governmental and some nongovernmental defendants on grounds that they
   engaged in “aggressive harassment,” “spreading gossip,” “domestic
   violence” and “witchcraft.” Her original complaint is difficult to understand
   and as the magistrate judge noted, encompasses allegations that are most
   accurately described as “delusional.” As relief, she sought sums of 300
   Billion, 600 Billion, and 1.7 Trillion dollars. A review of the district court’s
   docket reveals that, after the magistrate judge rendered his report and
   recommendation to dismiss her suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barnett filed
   approximately fifty-three additional motions in a period of two weeks,
   including a “Motion to Stop Voodoo Torture.” The district court construed
   Barnett’s onslaught of motions as objections to the magistrate judge’s report
   and recommendation and, consequently, conducted a de novo review of her
   claims. Thereafter, it adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
   recommendation in full and dismissed Barnett’s claims with prejudice. She
   filed this appeal.
                                 II. Discussion
          On appeal, Barnett has submitted a two-page brief that is entirely non-
   sensical and devoid of a single legal argument or statutory or case citation.
   She again alleges that she is entitled to damages for “witchcraft” that has
   been “overlooked” and “covered” by “a judge.” She asks this court for
   “[c]ase [r]eversal” to “prevent human rights violations against those who

                                           2
Case: 23-50640      Document: 00517015879            Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                                      No. 23-50640

   requested to be released by the group and psychic.” No responding brief has
   been filed.
          A district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(e) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d
   403, 406–07 (5th Cir. 2013). We will consider a complaint to be frivolous “if
   it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193
   (5th Cir. 1997). “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if
   the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that
   are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
   32–33 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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[.]” Id. at 33.
          After considering Barnett’s brief on appeal, we affirm the district
   court’s order dismissing her suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because we agree
   that her claims are entirely frivolous, lacking an arguable basis in both law and
   fact. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193; Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33.
                                III. Conclusion
          The district court’s order dismissing Barnett’s suit with prejudice is
   AFFIRMED.

                                            3