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 MOTIONS
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 motion to reopen the
case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (D.E.10). Also pending before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Enforcement of Court
Orders, Opinions, and Memorandums. (D.E. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the
undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s motions 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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 04, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 16 Filed 12/04/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
technology accesses Plaintiff's internal language processing and broadcasts his private
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 the instant motion. In his motion, Plaintiff
moves the Court to reopen this case because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff incorrectly states that this case was
closed due to “expiration of deadline.” (D.E. 10, pg. 2). Plaintiff also claims 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.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has filed his motion for relief from judgment. (D.E.10). Because the
motion was filed more than 28 days after the Final Judgment was entered, it should be
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 16 Filed 12/04/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
out five specific bases for granting relief from a final judgment: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation,
or misconduct of an adverse 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.
Plaintiff has failed to convince the undersigned that he is entitled to relief under any
of the Rule 60(b) provisions. Plaintiff has 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.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish an entitlement to relief from the
Court’s Final Judgment under Rule 60(b). The undersigned respectfully recommends,
therefore, that Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 10) be
DENIED.
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 16 Filed 12/04/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
Furthermore, because Plaintiff has not given any legal reason for this case to be
reopened, the undersigned also recommends that his Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(D.E. 12) be DENIED as moot.
Respectfully submitted on December 4, 2025.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 16 Filed 12/04/25 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 16 Filed 12/04/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 5