Harper v. Hidalgo et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document7 Filed 03/09/26in TXSD Pagelof4

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
March 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
§
Mamie L. Harper, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-06380
v. §
§
Lina Hidalgo, et al., §
§
Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

This suit was filed on December 29, 2025, on behalf of Plaintiff Mamie
L. Harper. Dkt. 1. But the complaint reflects that Plaintiff is deceased. See
Dkt. 1 at 8 (death certificate). Instead, the complaint was filed and signed by
Darrell J. Harper, see Dkt. 1 at 5, who also filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. There are two fatal problems here.

First, Mr. Harper is not a licensed attorney. He cannot represent the
decedent. See Mendoza v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2017 WL 4280778,
at *38 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2017) (dismissing a decedent’s claim because
“Mendoza—proceeding pro se—has no authority to represent other people,
including Decedent, because she is not a licensed attorney”).

Second, because Mr. Harper has filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits, this

Court entered the attached order barring him from filing new civil suits

2
without prior permission. 	Preclusion Order, Harper v. Texas, No. 4:17-mc-
02551, Dkt. 1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017). Indeed, his latest pleading is equally
frivolous, as it asserts that the collection of property taxes by Harris County
officials 	amounts 	to 	“THEFT,” 	“RAPE,” 	violates 	the 	First, 	Fifth, 	Eight,
Thirteen Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Homestead Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241 and 242, and maintains that Defendants owe “One Billion Dollars in
Treble Damages for violating the plaintiff’s spirit, violating the ‘Spirit’ of the
State of Texas, and violating the ‘Spirit’ of the United States Constitution.”
See Dkt. 1 at 3-5.
Regardless, Mr. Harper failed to obtain the necessary permission before
filing this latest suit. 	He cannot use the decedent’s name as a front for
circumventing the Preclusion Order.
It 	is 	therefore 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Mr. 	Harper’s 	filings 	be
STRICKEN, and this case be DISMISSED for violating the Preclusion Order.
It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Harper’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) should be DENIED as moot.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 7 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document7 Filed 03/09/26in TXSD Page 3of4

plain error. Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).

Signed on March 9, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

ome Ae

Yvofarte Y. Ho %
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
September 29, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
September 29, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Case 4:17-mc-02551 	Document 1 	Filed 09/28/17 in TXSD 	Page 1 of 1
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 7 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4