Lightfoot v. Oak Bend Medical Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DR. JAN ELIZABETH
LIGHTFOOT, AKA JAN
CHRISTOPHER AND JANICE
MARIE BANKS,
Plaintiff,
V.
OAK BEND MEDICAL CENTER,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-0837
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against
Defendant Oak Bend Medical Center and over 90 other persons and entities as
diverse as individual doctors and lawyers, multiple area sheriff’s departments,
former President Biden, and the Social Security Administration.1 ECF 1. The Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion seeking service by a U.S Marshal. ECF 16. Plaintiff filed
an interlocutory appeal, which the Fifth Circuit dismissed for want of jurisdiction on
November 26, 2025. ECF 27.
The docket reflects that, to date, Plaintiff has not served any Defendant.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a court may dismiss a case without
1 The District Judge referred the case to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 09, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00837 Document 29 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
prejudice if the plaintiff does not complete service within 90 days of filing the
Complaint. However, for the reasons below, the Court recommends that this case
be dismissed with prejudice.
The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte
without motion by a defendant as long as the procedure is fair. McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)); See Gaffney v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 294 Fed.
App’x 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte
for failure to state a claim as long as the procedure employed is fair). Generally, the
sua sponte dismissal procedure is fair if the plaintiff had notice of the court’s
intention to dismiss and an opportunity to respond. Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch.
Dist., 755 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2014) (“fairness in this context requires both notice
of the court's intention and an opportunity to respond” (citation omitted)); Anokwuru
v. City of Houston, 990 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2021). The procedure for sua sponte
dismissal in this case is fair because this Memorandum and Recommendation puts
Plaintiff on notice of the Court’s intention and Plaintiff has 14 days to file an
objection and explain why his case should be allowed to proceed. See Anokwuru,
990 F.3d at 967 (plaintiff that filed objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation
undoubtedly had notice and opportunity to respond before dismissal).2
2 In the alternative, at the discretion of the District Judge, the Court recommends dismissal be without prejudice for
failure to prosecute because Plaintiff has not perfected service. Davoodi, 755 F.3d at 310 n.1 (the Fifth Circuit
Case 4:25-cv-00837 Document 29 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint3 fails to state a cognizable claim for
relief and is patently frivolous. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff must 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 that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603
(5th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s lengthy and conclusory factual allegations date back to her report
of a criminal sexual assault in 2016 and culminate with allegations of fraudulent
medical billing in 2025. See ECF 15 at 14-18. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation
of her constitutional rights through, among other things, her unlawful commitment
in 2018; a “life-threatening conspiracy” to murder her through the forced
administration of pharmaceutical drugs to treat schizophrenia; fraud and falsification
of records by multiple individuals and entities, including the Department of Labor,
Social Security Administration, and various medical providers; medicare fraud; and
civil RICO violations. See generally ECF 15. Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a
plausible claim for relief under any federal or state law.
Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge sua sponte
recognizes an exception to the need to notice and opportunity to respond if dismissal is without prejudice).
3 The Court deemed Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint to be her operative pleading in this case. ECF 24.
Case 4:25-cv-00837 Document 29 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on December 09, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-00837 Document 29 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4