Leonard v. Leonard, 3:17-cv-00650

Pro se plaintiff Gabriel Leonard sued multiple private individuals alleging they used "hexes" and supernatural acts that harmed his speech, music sales, and YouTube channel; he sought nearly $1 trillion and death sentences for defendants.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating supernatural interference claims and adding additional defendants; he invoked federal question (First Amendment/§ 1983) and diversity jurisdiction.
The court screened the in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for frivolity and failure to state a claim.
Defendants were private individuals; the complaint contained fantastical allegations and no facts showing state action or racial animus required for federal civil‑rights claims.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice of all federal law claims as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and dismissal without prejudice of state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction; further amendment was deemed futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states a First Amendment/§ 1983 claim	Leonard alleges interference with free speech by private actors and seeks relief under § 1983	Defendants are private individuals and did not act under color of state law	Dismissed: § 1983 requires state action; private conduct not covered, so claim fails
Whether complaint states a § 1985 conspiracy claim	Leonard alleges defendants conspired to deprive his rights (hexes, interference)	Allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing a racially motivated conspiracy	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead operative facts or racial animus required for § 1985(3)
Whether federal jurisdiction (diversity) exists	Plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction on the civil cover sheet	Plaintiff and defendants are alleged Louisiana residents; diversity not shown	No diversity jurisdiction; federal claims dismissed on merits or as frivolous
Whether leave to amend should be allowed	Leonard previously amended once and seeks relief based on same factual assertions	Further amendment would be futile given fanciful, conclusory allegations	No further amendment: dismissal with prejudice of federal claims; state claims dismissed without prejudice

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (court may dismiss frivolous claims)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (requirements for state action)
Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2008) (limits on materials considered on motion to dismiss)
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2000) (documents central to claim may be considered part of pleadings)
Meade v. Dillard Dept. Stores, 275 F.3d 43 (5th Cir. 2001) (private entities generally not state actors)
Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2003) (under‑color‑of‑state‑law element excludes merely private conduct)
Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987) (plaintiffs must plead operative facts for conspiracy claims)
Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004) (conclusory conspiracy allegations insufficient)
Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 1994) (elements of § 1985(3) claim)
Lockett v. New Orleans City, 607 F.3d 992 (5th Cir. 2010) (racial animus required for § 1985 claim)