Moore v. McMaster

Background

Karen Tracey Moore brought the action against multiple defendants, including Henry McMaster, Curtis Loftis, a federal judge identified as unknown, Donald S. Trump, Melania Trump, several South Carolina police departments, the Republican Party, “Slave Owners,” and Fender Mender Collision. She represented herself and had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Moore’s rights through conduct including a purported conspiracy to have her horsewhipped, attempted murder, kidnapping, forced labor, peonage, intellectual-property theft, and other actions. It also alleged that government-related actors had implanted or placed devices and components in her body, including devices in her skull and abdomen. Moore sought money damages and various court orders.

Jurisdiction over the complaint

Before this dismissal, the court had denied Moore’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief on February 4, 2025. Moore later filed a motion to appeal, which the district court treated as a notice of an interlocutory appeal from that denial. The court held that the notice was filed more than 30 days after the February 4 order and was therefore untimely. It concluded that the attempted appeal did not prevent the district court from considering and dismissing the complaint.

Reasons for dismissal

Federal law requires a court to dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s filings generously, but the complaint still must provide a short and clear statement showing an entitlement to relief.

The court found that Moore provided no plausible factual support for her allegations that the government implanted devices in her or that there was a conspiracy involving horsewhipping and use of her as a surrogate for a “handmaid child.” It ruled that the allegations were irrational and therefore frivolous. The court concluded that the defects could not be fixed by amendment, so it declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It denied Moore’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel as moot; denied her motions to change venue as moot and without merit; and denied her motion to participate in electronic filing. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. The opinion did not decide whether a guardian ad litem was required because it dismissed the action without prejudice and concluded that no substantial claim could be asserted on Moore’s behalf.