Sellers v. United States of America

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TYQASHIA SELLERS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-01146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, TyQashia Sellers (“Sellers”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has sued the United States of America, TikTok, LLC, YouTube LLC, Facebook,
Instagram, 	Apple 	Inc., 	Pinterest 	Inc., 	the 	Social 	Security 	Administration, 	and 	the
Environmental 	Protection 	Agency. 	Sellers’s 	claims 	are 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (“Section 1915”) as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. All pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
BACKGROUND
The operative pleadings, Sellers’s Third Amended Complaint, consists of the
following handwritten paragraph:
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 15, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01146 Document 47 Filed on 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
(Dkt. 32 at p. 1). The subsequent twenty-six pages of the complaint are a typed document
consisting of disjointed statements—such as, “He said he’s a demon and he gon kill me”
(id. at p. 3), “I need you to tell them to cut the bots that’s following me everywhere off
[sic] turned off” (id. at p. 6), “My medication don’t work because they ai me and turned
my brain into a virtual mind and none of the pills are going up” (id. at p. 6), and “The gag
is I’m real brain dead and it’s starting to show in my face” (id. at p. 29). The number nine
is typed repeatedly throughout the document. See (Dkt. 32).
SECTION 1915
Under Section 1915, a district court “shall dismiss [a] case” brought by a plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is
frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002);
Patel v. United Airlines, 620 Fed. App’x 352 (5th Cir. 2015).
Case 4:25-cv-01146 Document 47 Filed on 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
An in forma pauperis case may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact. Newsome, 301 F.3d at 231. “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.” Id. “A complaint lacks an
arguable basis in fact when the facts alleged are fantastic or delusional scenarios or the
legal theory upon which a complaint relies is indisputably meritless.” Samford v. Dretke,
562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
The Court concludes that it must dismiss Sellers’s claims under Section 1915. The
allegations in the Third Amended Complaint read more like an unfortunate paranoid
delusion than a factual allegation on which a valid lawsuit can be based. Numerous federal
courts have dismissed similar allegations as too fantastic and delusional to state a
cognizable claim. See, e.g., Owens-El v. Pugh, 16 Fed. App’x 878, 879 (10th Cir. 2001)
(“[Petitioner] alleges that he is being harassed and tortured through a mind-control
device.”); Jackson v. Johnson, No. 3:05-CV-1230, 2005 WL 1521495, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex.
June 27, 2005), adopted, 2005 WL 1668084 (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2005) (“Plaintiff also
accuses the FBI of conspiring with state and local police to invade his privacy through
highly sophisticated surveillance techniques, computerized mind control, and satellite
weaponry.”); Dunigan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 3 Fed. App’x 461, 461–62 (6th
Cir. 2001) (“Dunigan filed her complaint in the district court in which she made allegations
Case 4:25-cv-01146 Document 47 Filed on 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
to the effect that federal officials controlled the minds of plaintiff and her family through
electronic devices.”).
Sellers has only alleged fantastic and delusional scenarios in a disjointed, non-
narrative style. As such, her complaint does not provide a valid basis on which she can
recover against any Defendant. The Court will dismiss Sellers’s claims under Section 1915
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
Sellers’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will issue a separate final
judgment.
Signed at Houston, Texas on December 15, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-01146 Document 47 Filed on 12/15/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4