Reported / Citable
Background
LaShawn Doree Clark, proceeding pro se, filed a 67-page complaint styled as a “comprehensive RICO prosecution dossier” against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S. Marshal Service. The complaint alleged a 51-year criminal conspiracy involving her family members, government employees, attorneys, and members of an unnamed “occult network.” The allegations, largely disjointed and lacking factual particulars, contained references to Masonic conspiracies, ritualistic torture, and various federal crimes including murder-for-hire, bank fraud, and wire fraud.
Among the more specific allegations were claims that Montgomery County Police officers conducted a “weaponized” raid on her home on September 22, 2022, during which they allegedly stole money and used excessive force. Plaintiff also alleged a June 5, 2024 “murder attempt” in which a State Department employee allegedly attempted to kill her at her behest of her parents. Plaintiff sought relief under RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, multiple federal criminal statutes, and state tort law.
Contemporaneously with filing her complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, along with several emergency motions requesting protective orders, witness protection, asset freezes, arrests of defendants, and a temporary restraining order.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding her financial resources insufficient to pay litigation costs. However, the court recommended dismissal of all claims with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The court found Plaintiff’s RICO allegations to be “fantastical and delusional,” describing her theory of a “multi-generational, multi-agency” scheme involving “classic masonic dagger walking” as wholly frivolous. The court noted that much of the complaint amounted to grievances about her family, whom she characterized as a “death cult,” and that allegations such as a friend’s “humiliation ritual” (asking about Thanksgiving plans) were facially implausible. The court also determined that Plaintiff lacked a private right of action to enforce most of the federal criminal statutes she cited, and that her civil trafficking claim against her parents for childhood chores was frivolous on its face.
With respect to the § 1983 claims arising from the 2022 police raid, the court found them time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Texas. Since the raid occurred on September 22, 2022, and the suit was filed on March 30, 2026—nearly four years later—the claims were dismissed as a matter of law. The court also found Plaintiff’s state tort law claims devoid of factual support and legal plausibility.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may grant an in forma pauperis motion while simultaneously recommending dismissal of the underlying claims as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Complaints describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios” may be dismissed as frivolous even with liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings.
- A private citizen generally lacks a judicially cognizable right to bring civil actions based on federal criminal statutes absent an express private right of action.
- § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury suits; in Texas, this is a two-year period running from the date of the alleged constitutional violation.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the federal judiciary’s gatekeeping function under § 1915(e)(2)(B) to filter out frivolous litigation at an early stage, even while extending procedural accommodations to financially indigent litigants. Although pro se complaints receive liberal construction, they must still allege facts with sufficient plausibility to state a claim, and allegations that are clearly fantastic or delusional may be dismissed without further proceedings.
The decision also reinforces that while courts accommodate pro se litigants, they remain bound by substantive law, including statutes of limitations and the requirement that private rights of action be expressly authorized by statute or clearly implied. The case demonstrates the intersection of access to courts through in forma pauperis provisions and the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent abuse of process.