Horton v. King et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GREGORY DWIGHT HORTON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-3417-K-BN
§
NATASHA KING, ET AL., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Without paying the statutory filing fee, Plaintiff Gregory Dwight Horton filed
a complaint pro se. See Dkt. No. 3. United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade referred
Horton’s complaint to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation that the Court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice as
frivolous.
Discussion
A district court is required to screen a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
(that is, without payment of the filing fee) and may summarily dismiss that complaint
(or any portion of it) if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (per
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
curiam).
And “[i]t is well-established that a district court may dismiss a complaint on
its own motion under [Rule] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
granted.” Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 3:18-cv-2851-M-BH, 2018 WL 6069969,
at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018) (citing Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (5th
Cir. 2006)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 6068991 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’d, 763 F.
App’x 383 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 142 (2019).
A district court may exercise its “inherent authority ... to dismiss a complaint
on its own motion ... ‘as long as the procedure employed is fair.’” Gaffney v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., 294 F. App’x 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Carroll,
470 F.3d at 1177; citation omitted).
“[F]airness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention to
dismiss sua sponte and an opportunity to respond.” Id. (cleaned up; quoting Lozano
v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636, 643 (5th Cir. 2007)); see also Carver v.
Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021) (“The broad rule is that ‘a district court
may dismiss a claim on its own motion as long as the procedure employed is fair.’
More specifically, ‘fairness in this context requires both notice of the court’s intention
and an opportunity to respond’ before dismissing sua sponte with prejudice.”
(citations omitted)).
And these findings, conclusions, and recommendations provide notice, while
the period for filing objections affords an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Starrett,
2018 WL 6069969, at *2 (citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
A district court’s authority to dismiss an action that “fails to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face’” extends to dismissal of “claims that are ‘clearly
baseless,’ including ‘claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.’” Starrett, 763
F. App’x at 383-84 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, then Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
(concluding that dismissal “is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of
the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable
facts available to contradict them”)).
A review of Horton’s filing reflects that the complaint presents claims and
allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring
dismissal with prejudice. Among other things, he alleges that the City of Dallas,
officers of the Dallas Police Department, attorneys with the Dallas County District
Attorney’s Office, and individuals associated with Turning Point Missionaries and
Faith of Memorial Baptist Church committed hate crimes leading him to be homeless
and are connected to the death of his sons, the trafficking of his daughters, and
extortion of his parents’ insurance. See Dkt. No. 3.
Further, these claims are largely duplicative of claims dismissed as frivolous
in two earlier cases. See Horton v. King, No. 3:23-cv-2540-B-BT, 2023 WL 9198121
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2023), rec. accepted, 2024 WL 130411 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2024);
Horton v. Northern Dist. Fed. Gov’t, No. 3:24-cv-698-D-BT, 2024 WL 3585635 (N.D.
Tex. July 3, 2024), rec. accepted, 2024 WL 3585603 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 29, 2024).
Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
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). Horton 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, Horton could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the
undersigned concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances
would be futile and cause needless delay.
Sanctions
And, because of his frivolous filing history in this Court, Horton has been
“warned that if he persists in filing frivolous or baseless cases, or cases in which the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court may impose monetary sanctions
and/or bar him from bringing any further actions.” Horton v. Northern Dist. Fed.
Gov’t, No. 3:24-cv-698-D, 2024 WL 3585603 (N.D. Tex. July 29, 2024). In addition to
the two cases discussed above, Horton has had at least two other cases dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Horton v. King, No. 3:23-cv-2049-E-BN, 2023
WL 6964059 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2023), rec. accepted, 2023 WL 6966073 (N.D. Tex.
Oct. 20, 2023); Horton v. FBI, No. 3:23-cv-2138-N-BK, 2023 WL 8720896 (N.D. Tex.
Oct. 23, 2023), rec. accepted, 2022 WL 8720692 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2023).
And, since he was warned, Horton has filed at least three cases (including this
one) – one of which has been dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Horton v. City of
Dallas, No. 3:25-cv-1985-X-BT, 2025 WL 2988726 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2025), rec.
accepted, 2025 WL 2987614 (Oct. 23, 2025) (dismissing for failure to prosecuted);
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
Horton v. Turning Point Missionaries Church Co-Founders, No. 3:25-cv-1853-B-BK
(filed Aug. 12, 2025 and alleging many of the same claims as in this action but subject
to PLRA filing fee and pending payment of remaining filing fee balance because
action was filed while Horton was incarcerated in Dallas County Jail).
Based on Horton’s filing history and continuing pattern of filing frivolous and
duplicative actions despite express warning by the Court regarding the consequences
for doing so, sanctions should be imposed. And Horton should be barred from filing
future actions in this district without first obtaining leave.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice as frivolous. And the
Court should bar Horton from filing future actions in this district without first
obtaining leave of court.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where 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
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

- 6 -
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).
DATED: December 19, 2025
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03417-K-BN Document 5 Filed 12/19/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>