Karr v. Biden et al, No. 3:2024cv00823 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2024)

Court Description: Order Accepting 5 Findings and Recommendations, dismissing with prejudice all claims as frivolous, and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 3 Complaint, filed by Donald Richard Karr, Jr. Further, if Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous lawsuits claims in this district, he will be sanctioned monetarily, barred from bringing any new actions in the future, or subjected to other sanctions the court deems appropriate. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 5/6/2024) (chmb)

Download PDF
Karr v. Biden et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD RICHARD KARR, JR., Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT JOESPH * R. BIDEN, JR., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-823-L-BK ORDER On April 11, 2024, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 5) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice this action by pro se Plaintiff Donald Richard Karr, Jr. against seven named Defendants and fifteen hundred Doe Defendants as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Report notes that the claims asserted in this action are substantially the same as those alleged by Plaintiff in the Western District of Texas. The Report further notices that Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status in that action, making his Complaint in this case subject to review for frivolousness. The Report, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff’s claims in this action are duplicative and should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Report 2 (quoting Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989)). No objections to the Report were filed, and the deadline for doing so has expired. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed some letters in which he details his financial status (Doc. 6). This filing, however, does not address the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions or recommendation * “Joesph” is the spelling used in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 3). Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com that this action be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous because it is duplicative of the action Plaintiff filed in the Western District of Texas. Having considered the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous against all Defendants. Further, if Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous lawsuits claims in this district, he will be sanctioned monetarily, barred from bringing any new actions in the future, or subjected to other sanctions the court deems appropriate. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 6th day of May, 2024. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.