Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
On Tuesday 10/10, United States District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed a second amended lawsuit brought by former TNA and WWE developmental star Trenesha "Rhaka Khan" Biggers in the Southern District of New York, claiming a conspiracy against her in relation to an ongoing Texas criminal case, listing, among others, as defendants: The State of Texas, The El Paso Child Protective Services, the FBI, The Las Cruces, New Mexico Police Department, The NYPD, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, New York ACS, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., Shirley Police Department, Sigma Phi Epsilon, Suffolk County NY, The Rock, WWE personalities The Miz and Maryse, current Impact Wrestling star Heath Miller, WWE Hall of Famer Nikki Bella, the late Chris Benoit, former WWE talent Mark Jindrak, the now-defunct Panda Energy (which once owned TNA/Impact), Home Depot, the now-defunct Florida Championship Wrestling, Steve Keirn, The National Wrestling Alliance, NWA President Billy Corgan, the now-defunct Deep South Wrestling, Bank of America, basketball star Michael Jordan, several Universities, Jim Cornette, Mick Foley, New York City area energy company Con Edison and countless others, which can be filed by people like San Marcos criminal defense lawyer.
The lawsuit alleged that the defendants all "conspired to kidnap plaintiff and her children."
Biggers' original lawsuit was dismissed in June of this year. She subsequently filed an amended lawsuit, which was shut down on 10/10 with the following court ruling:
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action asserting unrelated claims against thousands of Defendants. By order dated August 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file a second amended complaint because the previously-filed amended complaint did not state a claim.
The Court encouraged Plaintiff to limit her submission to 20 pages and informed her that, should she file a second amended complaint that was similar to her original and amended complaints, naming thousands of Defendants and asserting thousands of allegations, the Court would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action. Plaintiff has submitted a 171-page amended pleading that names approximately 500 defendants and asserts thousands of allegations. She also names the undersigned as a Defendant.
As discussed below, the Court (1) construes the second amended complaint as including a motion to recuse the undersigned, and denies the motion; (2) dismisses the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and (3) directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Recuse In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts that she and the undersigned were roommates. Plaintiff raised a similar allegation in a motion to recuse that she filed on July 5, 2023. (ECF 15, at 1) (claiming that Plaintiff and the undersigned “were previously roommates and/or co-workers,” and that the undersigned is aware of this alleged prior relationship).
On July 7, 2023, the Court denied the motion, concluding that “[b]ecause Plaintiff and the undersigned do not have a prior relationship, and no other grounds require the undersigned to recuse herself from this action,” the motion should be denied.
For the same reasons articulated in the Court’s July 7, 2023 order, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned. B. Order of Dismissal The Court has granted Plaintiff two opportunities to file a pleading that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that a complaint “contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In the two prior orders granting Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court considered the possibility that a claim arose in New York County and granted her leave to assert such a claim. The Court also warned Plaintiff that should she file a pleading similar to her original and amended complaints, the Court would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Plaintiff has now submitted a third pleading that is substantially similar to her first two pleadings. The Court therefore dismisses the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
There had been no movement on the case for months before the original dismissal.
Back in February, Biggers was authorized to move forward with the lawsuit without pre-paying any court fees. Court records indicate she notified by mail of this developmental in March at a home address she lists in New York City on the lawsuit. The 48-page lawsuit showed Biggers seeking $3 billion in damages. The majority of the filing is a long list of defendants, some of whom are listed multiple times.
None of the defendants listed had ever been served.
Texas court records indicate that Biggers still has a bench warrant out for her after not appearing for a criminal trial in December 2022 in Texas, where she was to face charges of interference with child custody and "aggravated kidnapping facilitate." In the State of Texas, interference with child custody is when someone "takes or retains a child when that person knows that the taking or detention of the child violates a judgment or order." It is considered a state jail felony and can be punishable by up to two years in prison.
In her lawsuit, Biggers makes reference to being taken to Riker's Island (a jail in NYC) after U.S. Marshalls arrived at her home in NYC to arrest her in October 2021, but that they failed to provide a "scintilla" of evidence in a hearing about her extradition. She claims that the Judge overseeing the hearing ordered her released but the arrest and hearing allowed for the "kidnapping" of her children and that the law enforcement agencies involved "failed to intervene."
Biggers also cited that "the terroristic tactics, actions and events" have caused her to be unable to gain employment and has "destroyed her professional wrestling career."
Biggers had been indicted on those charges way back in August 2019, leading to her being listed as one of El Paso’s most wanted fugitives after failing to appear in court. There are two court instances where her no-shows led to her bail being revoked. She was finally arraigned in December 2019. At a point, a bench warrant for her arrest was issued for missing a hearing but rescinded after she posted a $6,000 bond.
Biggers last wrestled in 2011 for the now-defunct Lucha Libre USA promotion, which aired on MTV. Biggers was part of the 2005 WWE Diva Search and was signed to a developmental contract after failing to make it past the top 25 contestants in the search. She was sent to Deep South Wrestling but was released in May 2006. She worked for a number of independent promotions and in Japan before signing with Impact Wrestling in 2008, departing that promotion in 2009. She worked for Lucha Libre USA in 2010 and 2011.
Biggers had been posting videos to YouTube in relation to her criminal case, claiming her indictment was "fake" but later made the videos private.
The 10/10 ruling makes reference to a third amended lawsuit filed by Biggers. PWInsider.com is working to acquire that lawsuit.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
