Wright v. LNU (3:26-CV-025)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROLLAND WRIGHT, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:26-CV-25-X-BK
§
FNU LNU, §
DEFENDANT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se civil action was referred
to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings
and a recommended disposition when appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and
applicable law, this action should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2026, Rolland Wright filed a pro se complaint that is incoherent,
nonsensical, and difficult to decipher. Doc. 3. It consists of a stream-of-consciousness narrative
that fails to allege a identifiable cause of action. Doc. 3 at 1-10. Wright does not name a
specific defendant but includes copies of his photo IDs throughout the complaint. Doc. 3 at 2, 4,
6, 8. In sum, Wright fails to present a cognizable federal claim and his factual contentions are
both delusional and deficient. Thus, this action should be dismissed as frivolous.
II. ANALYSIS
Because Wright did not pay the filing fee, the Court presumes that he seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is thus subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides inter alia for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the
Case 3:26-cv-00025-X-BK Document 5 Filed 02/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Court finds that it is frivolous or malicious. A complaint is frivolous when it is based on an
indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are “clearly ‘baseless.’”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The latter category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional”
scenarios, or that “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S.
at 33.
The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction,
however, Wright has failed to state a viable legal claim or anything that can be construed as
such. Moreover, as illustrated here, his factual contentions appear irrational and incredible and
thus inadequate to support any cognizable claim. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
Consequently, Wright’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as factually and
legally frivolous.
III. LEAVE TO AMEND
Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint before
dismissal, but leave is not required when he has already pled his “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke,
587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed here Wright has failed to state or suggest a
cognizable claim or any facts from which a cognizable claim can be inferred. Based on the most
deferential review of his complaint, it is highly unlikely that, given the opportunity, Wright could
allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend
under these circumstances would be futile and cause needless delay.
Case 3:26-cv-00025-X-BK Document 5 Filed 02/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Page 3 of 3
IV. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Wright’s action should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO RECOMMENDED on February 21, 2026.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by
law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific
written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific
written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir.
1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object
to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00025-X-BK Document 5 Filed 02/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>