IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION CURTIS JAMES McGUIRE, § TDCJ-CID No. 2004589, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § 2:25-CV-201-Z-BR § DONALD TRUMP, et al., § § Defendants. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Before the Court is the Complaint (ECF 3) filed by Plaintiff Curtis James McGuire while a prisoner in the San Saba Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in San Saba, Texas. His lawsuit is subject to preliminary screening as provided by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to such screening and for the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that McGuire’s Complaint be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis by a prisoner against a government entity or employee if the court determines that the complaint 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 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2017); see also Section 1915A(b) (applying section to any suit by a prisoner against certain governmental entities, regardless of whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis). A frivolous complaint lacks any arguable basis, either in fact or in law, for the wrong alleged. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint has no arguable basis in fact if it rests upon clearly fanciful or baseless factual contentions, and similarly lacks an arguable basis in law if it embraces indisputably meritless legal theories. See id. at 327; Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). When analyzing a prisoner’s complaint, the court may consider reliable evidence such as the plaintiff’s allegations, responses to a questionnaire, and authenticated prison records. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that responses to a questionnaire or testimony given during an evidentiary hearing are incorporated into
the plaintiff’s pleadings). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but does not credit conclusory allegations that merely restate the legal elements of a claim. Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). While courts hold pro se plaintiffs to a more lenient standard than attorneys when analyzing complaints, such plaintiffs must nevertheless plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief above a speculative level. Id. (citing Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002)). II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Factual Background.
On September 4, 2025, McGuire filed his Complaint against “Donald Trump, the U.S. Police Department, the U.S. Government, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the U.S. [Marshals] and the U.S. Military.” His complaint is incoherent and nonsensical. He alleges, in sum, that Defendants are using government secrets to further a conspiracy, use biological weapons, commit war crimes and interfere with a custody case involving his daughter. Upon review, McGuire fails to present a cognizable federal claim, and his factual contentions are both delusional and deficient. Thus, this action should be sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim.1
1Although McGuire did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it is more B. McGuire’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed. The Court may exercise its “inherent authority . . . to dismiss a complaint on its own motion . . . ‘as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Gaffney v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 294 F. App’x 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting, in turn, Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998))).
“The broad rule is that ‘a district court may dismiss a claim on its own motion as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). “‘[F]airness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention and an opportunity to respond’ before dismissing sua sponte with prejudice.” Id. (quoting Carroll, 470 F.3d at 1177). These findings, conclusions, and recommendation (the “FCR”) provide McGuire the requisite notice, and the 14-day period to object to the FCR (explained in more detail below) will allow him an opportunity to respond. See Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998) (concluding magistrate judge’s recommendation provides both notice and a reasonable opportunity
to respond to dispositive issue that the court raises sua sponte); Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., No. 3:18-CV-2851-M-BH, 2018 WL 6069969, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018), R. & R. adopted, 2018 WL 6068991 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 383 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming sua sponte dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) based on magistrate judge’s recommendation). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
efficient dismiss the Complaint than to first seek compliance with the Court’s filing requirements. that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted). The Court must liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting that pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under
this most liberal construction, however, McGuire has failed to state a viable legal claim or anything that can be construed as such. His allegations do not rise to the level of “threadbare recitals” of the elements of a cause of action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION CURTIS JAMES McGUIRE, § TDCJ-CID No. 2004589, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § 2:25-CV-201-Z-BR § DONALD TRUMP, et al., § § Defendants. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Before the Court is the Complaint (ECF 3) filed by Plaintiff Curtis James McGuire while a prisoner in the San Saba Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in San Saba, Texas. His lawsuit is subject to preliminary screening as provided by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to such screening and for the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that McGuire’s Complaint be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis by a prisoner against a government entity or employee if the court determines that the complaint 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 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2017); see also Section 1915A(b) (applying section to any suit by a prisoner against certain governmental entities, regardless of whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis). A frivolous complaint lacks any arguable basis, either in fact or in law, for the wrong alleged. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint has no arguable basis in fact if it rests upon clearly fanciful or baseless factual contentions, and similarly lacks an arguable basis in law if it embraces indisputably meritless legal theories. See id. at 327; Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). When analyzing a prisoner’s complaint, the court may consider reliable evidence such as the plaintiff’s allegations, responses to a questionnaire, and authenticated prison records. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that responses to a questionnaire or testimony given during an evidentiary hearing are incorporated into
the plaintiff’s pleadings). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but does not credit conclusory allegations that merely restate the legal elements of a claim. Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). While courts hold pro se plaintiffs to a more lenient standard than attorneys when analyzing complaints, such plaintiffs must nevertheless plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief above a speculative level. Id. (citing Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002)). II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Factual Background.
On September 4, 2025, McGuire filed his Complaint against “Donald Trump, the U.S. Police Department, the U.S. Government, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the U.S. [Marshals] and the U.S. Military.” His complaint is incoherent and nonsensical. He alleges, in sum, that Defendants are using government secrets to further a conspiracy, use biological weapons, commit war crimes and interfere with a custody case involving his daughter. Upon review, McGuire fails to present a cognizable federal claim, and his factual contentions are both delusional and deficient. Thus, this action should be sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim.1
1Although McGuire did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it is more B. McGuire’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed. The Court may exercise its “inherent authority . . . to dismiss a complaint on its own motion . . . ‘as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Gaffney v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 294 F. App’x 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting, in turn, Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998))).
“The broad rule is that ‘a district court may dismiss a claim on its own motion as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). “‘[F]airness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention and an opportunity to respond’ before dismissing sua sponte with prejudice.” Id. (quoting Carroll, 470 F.3d at 1177). These findings, conclusions, and recommendation (the “FCR”) provide McGuire the requisite notice, and the 14-day period to object to the FCR (explained in more detail below) will allow him an opportunity to respond. See Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998) (concluding magistrate judge’s recommendation provides both notice and a reasonable opportunity
to respond to dispositive issue that the court raises sua sponte); Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., No. 3:18-CV-2851-M-BH, 2018 WL 6069969, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018), R. & R. adopted, 2018 WL 6068991 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 383 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming sua sponte dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) based on magistrate judge’s recommendation). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
efficient dismiss the Complaint than to first seek compliance with the Court’s filing requirements. that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted). The Court must liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting that pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under
this most liberal construction, however, McGuire has failed to state a viable legal claim or anything that can be construed as such. His allegations do not rise to the level of “threadbare recitals” of the elements of a cause of action. Further, as illustrated above, his factual contentions appear irrational and incredible and, thus, inadequate to support any cognizable claim. C. Leave to Amend. Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint before dismissal, but leave is not required when he has already pled his “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed here, McGuire has failed to state or suggest a cognizable claim or any facts from which a cognizable claim can be inferred. Based on the most
deferential review of his complaint, it is highly unlikely that, given the opportunity, McGuire could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and cause needless delay. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge concludes that McGuire’s claims should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. ENTERED September 30, 2025.
LEE ANN RENO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT * Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (Sth Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (Sth Cir. 1988).