Kendrick v. Winfrey

Background

De’Andre L. Kendrick filed the action while incarcerated and proceeded without a lawyer. He sued Oprah Winfrey, Gayle King, and Tyler Perry. The complaint sought injunctive relief and alleged, among other things, that Kendrick had authorized Winfrey to serve as a chief executive officer of several corporations; that he was married to Winfrey and King; that King and Perry owed him money; that Perry falsely claimed ownership of books Kendrick wrote; and that Kendrick had agreements with King and Winfrey involving millions of dollars and other terms.

Kendrick alleged causes of action or theories involving constitutional rights, negligence, deliberate indifference, mental anguish, the Lanham Act, false advertising, fraud, and theft. He requested unlimited conjugal visits with Winfrey and various items, including cigarettes, shoes, clothing, food, cannabis, and lighters.

Other filings

Kendrick also filed motions and requests concerning a telephone or video hearing, nondisclosure and removal of the case from public view, entry of default, disclosure, service and joinder, construction of the pleading, supplemental filings and discovery, and permission to proceed or defend as an indigent person. In a separate order dated December 11, 2025, the court granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee even when granted that permission.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a case filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts must read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint must still provide a factual basis for the claims.

The court held that the complaint was frivolous because its central allegations were unsupported, implausible, irrational, and “wholly incredible.” It concluded that the complaint was based on conclusory allegations and suspicions rather than facts that could support relief. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Leave to amend

The court declined to grant Kendrick permission to amend the complaint. It explained that amendment is generally allowed for a self-represented plaintiff when defects might be cured, but is not required when amendment would be futile. The court found no indication that Kendrick possessed additional facts that could cure the identified deficiencies.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous, denied all pending motions and requests, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF entries 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19. It also directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons stated in the order.