Blackwood-Head v. United States of America

1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ERICK SCOTT BLACKWOOD-HEAD
Plaintiff
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Plaintiff Erick Scott Blackwood-Head, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil action seeking to sue the United States of America for various alleged
constitutional violations relating to his claims he has been subjected to “illegal neural
monitoring and broadcasting.” Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion to
Reopen Case (D.E. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges he was incarcerated in Chautauqua County Jail in 2022 and 2023
and again incarcerated in the Harris County Jail in Houston, Texas from July 2024 to
January 2025. He has since moved to Corpus Christi, Texas. Plaintiff alleges that during
his incarceration he was “subjected to illegal neural monitoring and broadcasting through
advanced neurotechnology” without his consent. (D.E. 1-1). According to Plaintiff, “[t]his
technology accesses Plaintiff's internal language processing and broadcasts his private
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
thoughts to third parties.” (D.E. 1-1, p. 2). Plaintiff believes this monitoring is conducted
by federal agencies and contractors and continues to this day. Plaintiff also alleges he is
being subjected to “sustained harassment via RF (radio frequency) devices, which emit
directed energy to target him with auditory and physical effects.” (D.E. 1-1, p. 2). Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief and monitory damages.
On May 9, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Libby issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) to dismiss this case. On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed written
objections to the M&R. On July 21, 2025, District Judge David S. Morales entered an
Order adopting the M&R and dismissed this case. (D.E. 6). On the same day, Judge
Morales entered a Final Judgment dismissing this action. (D.E. 7).
On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first motion to re-open this case. In his
motion, Plaintiff moved the Court to reopen this case because of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff incorrectly stated that this
case was closed due to “expiration of deadline.” (D.E. 10, pg. 2). Plaintiff also claimed that
because the Final Judgment closing this case was entered within twenty-four hours of
Plaintiff making statements on social media, that that factor should constitute new
evidence. Id. at 3. On January 20, 2026, District Judge David S. Morales entered an Order
adopting the M&R, denying Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion to re-open this case. (D.E. 21).
On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed his second motion to re-open this case pursuant to
Rule 60(b), along with supplemental briefing. (D.E.s 22, 23, & 24). Plaintiff’s motion
contends that there is “newly available evidence and developments in the public record that
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
were not before the Court at the time of its January 20, 2026 Order.” (D.E. 22, pg. 1).
Plaintiff submits that the U.S. government has a documented history of experimentation on
civilians, surveillance technologies are established in science and in government, and that
Plaintiff is in the process of arranging physical testing that may produce evidence relevant
to his claims. (D.E. 22).
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Reopen Case, dated March 3, 2026, was received by
the Court on March 5, 2026. (D.E. 22).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff indicates that he seeks to reopen this case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) sets out five specific bases for granting relief from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable evidence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation,
or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; and (5) satisfaction,
discharge, or release of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5). In addition, Rule
60(b)(6) provides that a Court may relieve a party from final judgment for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This “any other reason” clause is a
“grand reservoir of equitable power” to do justice in a case when relief is not warranted by
the five enumerated grounds. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir.
1995) (citations omitted). This relief will be granted only if “extraordinary circumstances”
are present. Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
Plaintiff does not specify which subsection of Rule 60(b) that he seeks relief, but
states that there is newly discovered evidence and developments in the public record. (D.E.
22, p. 1). While not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff’s new evidence primarily relates to
new neurological surveillance technologies recognized by the government and some type
of physical testing the Plaintiff may undergo in the future.
Plaintiff has failed to convince the undersigned that he is entitled to relief under any
of the Rule 60(b) provisions. Plaintiff has again failed to address any alleged errors in the
Court’s Order and Final Judgment dismissing his claims as legally and factually frivolous.
As Plaintiff’s claims were subject to dismissal as frivolous, the Court need not consider
any of Plaintiff’s arguments related to the merits of his claims. Accordingly, the
undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to show an entitlement to relief under any
subsection of Rule 60(b) that warrants the reopening of this case.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s
Second Motion to Reopen Case (D.E. 22) be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted on March 9, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5