Johnson v. Trinity Mother Frances Hospital

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00118
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DARRELL STEPHEN JOHNSON, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § No. 3:25-cv-118-B-BN § TRINITY MOTHER FRANCES § HOSPITAL, § § Defendant. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Without paying the statutory filing fee, Plaintiff Darrell Stephen Johnson filed a complaint pro se against Trinity Mother Frances Hospital alleging that the hospital implanted a mind control device in his head in June 1996. Dkt. No. 3. United States District Judge Jane J. Boyle referred Johnson’s complaint to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice as frivolous. Discussion A district court is required to screen a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis (that is, without payment of the filing fee) and may summarily dismiss that complaint (or any portion of it) if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

And “[i]t is well-established that a district court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion under [Rule] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted.” Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 3:18-cv-2851-M-BH, 2018 WL 6069969, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018) (citing Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 2006)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 6068991 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 383 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 142 (2019). A district 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, 470 F.3d at 1177; citation omitted). “[F]airness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention to dismiss sua sponte and an opportunity to respond.” Id. (cleaned up; quoting Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636, 643 (5th Cir. 2007)); see also Carver v.

Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021) (“The broad rule is that ‘a district court may dismiss a claim on its own motion as long as the procedure employed is fair.’ More specifically, ‘fairness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention and an opportunity to respond’ before dismissing sua sponte with prejudice.” (citations omitted)). And these findings, conclusions, and recommendations provide notice, while the period for filing objections affords an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Starrett, 2018 WL 6069969, at *2 (citations omitted). A district court’s authority to dismiss an action that “fails to ‘state a claim for

relief that is plausible on its face’” extends to dismissal of “claims that are ‘clearly baseless,’ including ‘claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.’” Starrett, 763 F. App’x at 383-84 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, then Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (concluding that dismissal “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”)).

A review of Johnson’s filing reflects that the complaint presents claims and allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal with prejudice. And the face of the complaint makes clear that the claims alleged expired decades ago. Under Texas law, a statute of repose requires health care liability claims to be brought “not later than 10 years after the date of the act or omission that gives

rise to the claim.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.251(b). “Unlike a statute of limitations, ‘a staute of repose creates a substantive right to be free from liability after a legislatively determined period.’” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Poole Chem. Co., 419 F.3d 355, 363 (quoting Cadle Co. v. Wilson, 136 S.W.3d 345, 350 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). “With the expiration of the period of repose, the putative cause of action evanesces; life cannot thereafter be breathed back into it.” Id. Johnson alleges that the date of the treatment giving rise to his claim was June 28, 1996 – more than 28 years ago. See Dkt. No. 3 at 2. And Johnson acknowledges that he became aware of this claim in 1997 and previously filed a lawsuit with this

Court about this incident more than 20 years ago in 2004. See id. That lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on May 10, 2004. See Johnson v. Trinity Mother Frances Hosp., No. 3:04-cv-0409-R, Dkt. Nos. 13, 18, 19. Johnson’s appeal was also dismissed as frivolous on January 14, 2005. See Johnson v. Trinity Mother Frances Hosp., No. 04-10613. Like Johnson’s original lawsuit, this lawsuit should also be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

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). Johnson 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, Johnson could allege cogent and viable legal claims.

Thus, the undersigned concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and cause needless delay. Recommendation The Court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice. A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. □□□□ P. 72(b). In order 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 findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). DATED: January 28, 2025 z | DAVIDL.HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE