Duvall v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
ROBIN B. DUVALL,
Plaintiff
v.
SEDWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01995-ADA
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Robin B. Duvall’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) and Motion to Proceed In forma
Pauperis, both filed December 5, 2025 (Dkt. 3).1
I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Duvall seeks leave under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) to file her Complaint without having to prepay the
filing fee or costs. Dkt. 2. Under § 1915(a)(1), a court may permit a plaintiff to file an action “without
prepayment of fees or security therefor” if she shows by affidavit that she cannot pay such fees or security.
Section 1915(a) “is intended to provide access to federal courts for plaintiffs who lack the financial
resources to pay . . . statutory filing costs.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). In making
an in forma pauperis determination, a court should consider whether an applicant may pay the filing fee
without suffering undue financial hardship. Id.
After reviewing her application, the Court finds that Duvall cannot pay the filing fee without
experiencing undue financial hardship. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Duvall in forma pauperis status
and ORDERS her Complaint to be filed without pre-payment of fees or costs. This in forma pauperis status
1 The District Court referred the Motion to this Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. Dkt. 4.
Case 1:25-cv-01995-ADA Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
is granted subject to a later determination that the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is
untrue or if, under § 1915(e)(2), the action is found to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages against an immune defendant. The Court also may
impose costs of court against Duvall at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald,
30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
II. Review Under Section 1915(e)(2)
Because Duvall has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing
order to review her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A court shall dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous when “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the
violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Doe v. Charter Commc’ns, L.L.C., 131 F.4th 323,
328 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013)). Pro se complaints are
held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), but a plaintiff’s pro se status offers “no impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no
license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded
court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Hou., N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Duvall alleges that she has worked as a stockbroker for Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management
Services, Inc. since 2013 and participated in an employee welfare benefit plan administered by Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc. that provided short-term disability benefits to Sedgwick employees. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 14, 18-
19. Duvall alleges that she became disabled and unable to work on March 17, 2025, due to adverse reactions
to her Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor medications. Duvall alleges that Sedgwick wrongfully denied
her disability claim and suppressed medical evidence that she was disabled. Id. ¶¶ 34-55.
Case 1:25-cv-01995-ADA Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Duvall sues Sedgwick; Charles Schwab; Network Medical Review Co., LLC, a physician advisory
services company providing services to Sedgwick; and several physician advisors who assisted Sedgwick.
Duvall asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”); the civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962; 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and
Texas common law.
While Duvall’s claims under ERISA, RICO, and Texas common law do not appear patently frivolous
at this time, her claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Section 1519
is a federal criminal statute relating to destruction, alteration, or falsification of records. “A private party
has no right to enforce federal criminal statutes.” United States v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am. Inc.,
601 F. Supp. 3d 97, 123 (N.D. Tex. 2022) (citation omitted); see also Bogard v. Lowe, No. SA-21-CV-21-
FB, 2022 WL 1050332, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2022) (recommending dismissing claims under “a variety
of criminal statutes, both federal and state” because they failed to provide for a private right of action),
R. & R. accepted, 2022 WL 22867447 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2022). Accordingly, Duvall’s obstruction of
justice claim should be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2).
III. Order
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Robin B. Duvall’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 3)
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and ORDERS Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed without prepayment of fees
or costs or giving security therefor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court FURTHER ORDERS
the Clerk to issue summons and the United States Marshals Service to attempt service in this case without
pre-payment of a service fee.
IV. Recommendation
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS with prejudice Duvall’s
claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 for frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court ORDERS the Clerk to remove this case from this Magistrate Judge’s docket and return it to
the docket of the Honorable Alan D Albright.
Case 1:25-cv-01995-ADA Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
V. Warnings
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must
identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need
not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419,
421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy
of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate
review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on January 5, 2026.
SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01995-ADA Document 5 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4