Reyna v. Meta Platforms Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOSEPH ANTHONY REYNA, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL NO. 3:25-CV-3562-N-BK
§
META PLATFORMS INC., §
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 case was referred to the
United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and
applicable law, this case should be DISMISSED based on the filing restrictions previously
imposed against Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Reyna should also be BARRED from filing future actions in this Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Reyna, a resident of Austin, Texas,
initiated this suit by filing a complaint alleging claims against Meta Platforms, Inc., and a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3; Doc. 4. Specifically, Reyna appears to allege
trademark infringement and false designation claims, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Doc. 3 at 5-6.
Reyna has a long history of abusive filings. The PACER Case Locator (“PACER”)
reflects that since early 2025, Reyna has filed over 30 civil actions—at least eleven of which
Case 3:25-cv-03562-N-BK Document 11 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

Page 2 of 5
have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1
See Reyna v. Texas Med. Liability Trust, No. 1:25-cv-1105 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2025); Reyna v.
Davita Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01028 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2025); Reyna v. Nelnet, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-
01107 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2025); Reyna v. Spotify Tech. S.A., No. 1:25-cv-01023 (W.D. Tex.
Oct. 22, 2025); Reyna v. Block, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01402-RP (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025); Reyna v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 1:25-cv-01498 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2025); Reyna v. Twitch
Interactive, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01504 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2025); Reyna v. Nelson, No. 1:25-cv-
01676 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2025); Reyna v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 1:25-cv-01356 (W.D. Tex.
Dec. 4, 2025); Reyna v. Breit Steadfast, No. 1:25-cv-01608 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2025); Reyna v.
Exxon Mobile Corp., No. 1:25-cv-00194 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026).
Additionally, Reyna is under a filing restriction in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, which has barred him from filing complaints in that court without obtaining
prior approval from a district or magistrate judge. See Reyna v. Block, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01402-
RP (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025); Reyna v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 1:25-cv-01498 (W.D. Tex.
Nov. 6, 2025); Reyna v. Nelson, No. 1:25-cv-01676 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2025). It appears that
in an attempt to evade that sanction, Reyna filed the instant case in the Northern District of
Texas.
II. ANALYSIS
“[T]he judicial system is generally accessible and open to all individuals.” Kaminetzky v.
Frost Nat'l Bank of Houston, 881 F. Supp. 276, 277 (S.D. Tex. 1995). Even so “district courts
have an obligation to protect the orderly administration of justice and prevent abuse of the
1 PACER is available at https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csologin/login.jsf?pscCourtId=PCL
(last accessed on Jan. 23, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-03562-N-BK Document 11 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

Page 3 of 5
court’s process by frivolous and vexatious litigants.” Ruston v. Dallas Cnty., Tex., No. 3:07-CV-
1076-D, 2008 WL 958076, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2008) (Fitzwater, J). Pro se litigants have
“no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse
already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th
Cir.1986).
Courts may also enforce “outstanding sanction orders of sister courts” within and outside
their circuit. See Schmidt v. Van Buren, 243 F. App’x 803, at *1-2 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished
per curiam) (upholding the enforcement of a sanction order from a district court outside the Fifth
Circuit); Dominguez v. Scott, 265 F.3d 1058, 2001 WL 872771, at *2 (5th Cir. July 5, 2001)
(unpublished) (upholding the enforcement of a sanction order from a Texas district court); see
also Tepe v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:24-CV-1280-L-BK, 2024 WL 3731624, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. July 2, 2024) (collecting cases and enforcing sanction order from the Eastern District of
Tennessee), rec. accepted, 2024 WL 3732474, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2024).
As in prior cases, Reyna seeks in forma pauperis status to sue a private company. A
cursory review of his claims reveals that even under the most liberal construction, he does not
plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. That notwithstanding, Reyna also does
not assert that any acts or omissions occurred within the geographical boundaries of the Northern
District of Texas. Thus, venue is not proper in this Court.
Because Reyna is a serial litigator who persists in filing lawsuits that fail to state a claim,
this Court should honor the sanction previously imposed against him in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas and bar him from filing this action. The Court should also bar
Reyna from filing future actions in this Court without first obtaining leave of court and paying
the filing fee.
Case 3:25-cv-03562-N-BK Document 11 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

Page 4 of 5
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Reyna’s complaint should be DISMISSED based on the pre-
filing restrictions imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Further, Reyna should be BARRED from filing future actions in this Court without first
paying the filing fee and obtaining leave of court to do so, and any case filed, removed, or
transferred without the applicable filing fee and obtaining leave of court (in which he is the
plaintiff) should not be reviewed by the Court. To obtain leave to file, Reyna would be required
to file an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” with a copy of the
proposed complaint and certify that: (1) the claim or claims presented have never been raised and
disposed of on the merits by any federal court; and (2) the claim or claims are not frivolous or
taken in bad faith. Additionally, any application seeking leave to file would be required to either
cite to or affix a copy of this Court’s sanction order.
SO RECOMMENDED on January 26, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-03562-N-BK Document 11 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

Page 5 of 5
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 3:25-cv-03562-N-BK Document 11 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>