Case: 18-31073 Document: 00514874655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-31073 FILED March 15, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SHANTA G. PHILLIPS-BERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Litigation Division; UNITED STATES MILITARY; FACEBOOK; UBER; LYFT, L.L.C.; ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY; ENTERGY OF LOUISIANA; LOUISIANA DISCIPLINARY BOARD OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONS; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HEALTH AND HOSPITALS DEPARTMENT OF LOUISIANA; OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLE LOUISIANA; SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES LOUISIANA; HOUSING AUTHORITY LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, STATE OF LOUISIANA; COMMUNICATION SERVICE OF LOUISIANA; ENTERGY LOUISIANA, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-7890 Case: 18-31073 Document: 00514874655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2019

No. 18-31073

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant Shanta Phillips-Berry appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against the defendants. Because the plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, we AFFIRM.

The plaintiff filed four complaints in the district court, alleging claims against a range of parties, including the President of the United States, rideshare companies, a social media company, and an electricity utility, among others. The plaintiff’s primary claim centers on an alleged conspiracy among the myriad defendants to commit crimes against the defendant and the United States of America, which included an allegation that the defendants conspired to implant a device into her body that causes her pain and controls her mind.

The district court found the complaint and subsequent motions to be “incoherent and wholly lacking any legal basis.” The district court barred the plaintiff from filing future complaints or motions concerning her criminal conspiracy claims. The plaintiff appealed. Liberally construing her appeal, she argues that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed her claims. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).

An in forma pauperis claim may properly be dismissed “whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” including “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We find no error in the district court’s decision to dismiss

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 18-31073 Document: 00514874655 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2019

No. 18-31073 the plaintiff’s claims, which we review for abuse of discretion. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. AFFIRMED.