Hooks v. Obama, No. 22-50676 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50676 Summary Calendar FILED December 12, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Arthur Hooks, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Barack Hussein Obama, Former President; Mitchell Landry, White House Aid; Stephanie Lalonde, Public Defender; Michael Allen, District Attorney; Colorado Springs Police Department, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:21-cv-00827 Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Arthur Hooks appeals the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which we review for abuse of * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5. Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 No. 22-50676 discretion. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2009). A complaint is “frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute accords judges the power to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” which include those “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)) (analyzing § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Hooks asserts a conspiracy in which former President Barack Obama and Mitchell Landreiu, 1 currently Senior Advisor to the President, Joseph Biden, violated Hooks’s constitutional rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Federal Bribery Statute. Among other allegations, Hooks claims President Obama and Landrieu colluded to deny him an education and accommodations he was entitled to under the ADA. 2 He seeks $200 million in damages and prays that President Obama and Landrieu be denied “presidential privileges” and prevented from ever holding office again. In his Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge found that Hooks’s claims are “based on fantastic or delusional scenarios in which Hooks attributes wrongdoing to powerful people who have no connection to him or his situation” and should be dismissed as factually frivolous. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation after first conducting 1 In his initial complaint, Hooks named Mitchell Landry as a defendant, which is how the defendant’s name appears on both the district court and appellate court docket; however, in subsequent pleadings and on appeal, Hooks refers to Landrieu by his correct name, Mitchell Landrieu. 2 Hooks also makes several constitutional claims against a Colorado Springs public defender and district attorney, along with the Colorado Springs Police Department. 2 Case: 22-50676 Document: 00516574223 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 No. 22-50676 “a de novo review of the entire case file in this action” and finding that Hooks “fails to provide any arguable basis in law or in fact that supports his allegations.” After conducting our own review of the record, we detect no error in these determinations. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
