UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 15, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk 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

(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:

1 / 4 □□ ee = dying & ll Ure. Widling We C&shve WW] O norrdhan ) WAN now. GE. olihy ty WM We TA the fule pt ty We vesednd [ow (Ging Lop Leldif,. Wieol > Show Up WW cor

(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 ’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 1f the court determines that... the action .. . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]”

(e)(2)(B); see also Newsome v. EEOC,

, 231 (Sth Cir. 2002); Patel vy. United Airlines, 620 Fed. App’x 352 (Sth Cir. 2015).

2/4

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,

, 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,

, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2005), adopted,

(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

3 / 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

(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.

4 / 4