United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
appearing pro se, brings this frivolous action. By
order dated December 8, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of
fees, that is, in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). The Court dismisses this action for the
reasons set forth below.
Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage
Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must
also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While
the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court
is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally,
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and
interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that
they suggest, ” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau
of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).
is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding
that a “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d
at 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is
‘frivolous' when either: (1) the factual
contentions are clearly baseless . . .; or (2) the claim is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
of Plaintiff's history of filing frivolous and vexatious
actions, by order dated November 7, 2019, the Court barred
Plaintiff from filing future civil actions IFP in this Court
without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See
Frost v. New York City (HRA), ECF 1:19-CV-8936, 6
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2019). Although the filing bar does not
apply to this action, which was filed before the filing bar
was issued, this action is not a departure from
Plaintiff's pattern of frivolous and vexatious filings.
Someone said “it was the perfect zip code.”
M.T.A. and H.R.A. are retaliating. They are not pleased. I
did not go along with a side deal partial house owner-ship. I
heard them say “big girls don't c r y. ” I
wrote that way of doing business was not going to fix issues
but create more problems for me when I filed that order.
I am holding the defendants accountable for sending me to
specific/selective places to get others to steal from me. The
defendants have done this through programming . . . .
A couple people in a sector of government must go. The wrath
of God is kindled against them. They have oppressed me and
suppressed me for a very long time. They have tried to trick
me - scam me out of my inheritance. They have blocked my path
making it impossible for me to get ahead. They have been
recreating the same problems with slight twist to frustrate
me. At times[, ] the defendants do things to confuse a
person. They think you might have forgotten the original way
it started. The defendants have been doing things to drive me
insane. There are many ways to torture someone. The
defendants have been torturing me with my children -
withholding them from me.
(ECF 2, p. 5, 8.)
when read with the “special solicitude” due
pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at
475, Plaintiffs claims rise to the level of the irrational,
and there is no legal theory on which she can rely. See
Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at
437. The Court therefore dismisses this action as frivolous.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an
opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but
leave to amend is not required where it would be futile.
See Hill v. Curcione,657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.
2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.
1988). Because the defects in Plaintiffs complaint ...