finding that even if “it is clear that no substantial claim could be asserted on behalf of the [plaintiff],” a district court “may dismiss the complaint, but without prejudice” when a plaintiff may be considered incompetent
How later courts described this case
- finding that even if “it is clear that no substantial claim could be asserted on behalf of the [plaintiff],” a district court “may dismiss the complaint, but without prejudice” when a plaintiff may be considered incompetent
- “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFIC
US DISTRICT COURT EDNY,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK =SEP I¢ 205 +
□□□ nnn eee ennennenenenecceceee X
KENYETTA RUSSELL, BROOKLYN OFFICE
Plaintiff,
~ against — MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
1:19-CV-05063 (AMD) (JO)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
VICTORIA JONES, DONALD TRUMP, AND _ .:
GEORGE AMEDORE,
Defendants. .
stitial acta teatime iepreeuemarencccens TE
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On August 28, 2018, the plaintiff, Kenyatta Russell, commenced this pro se action
against the Central Intelligence Agency, Victoria Jones, President Donald Trump, and New York
Senator George Amedore. (ECF No. 1.) The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2) is granted solely for the purpose of this order. For the
reasons that follow, the plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs lawsuit is premised on her claim that she was “illegally” placed under
“some type of guardianship” when she sought help from the White House and Senator George
Amedore for “trouble with [her] neighbors and a man named Deric Freedom Brown.” (ECF No.
1 at 5, 6, 9.) The plaintiff's alleged guardian, Victoria Jones, has “psychologically terrorized”
her by making mean-spirited comments, calling the police, and stealing. (/d. at 8-9.) The
plaintiff also claims that “[p]Jeople were . . . told not to speak to [her] in English on [her] trip to
Montreal,” and “[her] trip to England was intentionally made rough on purpose[.]” possibly
because of Ms. Jones’s “connections to the Marines or other military.” (/d. at 8.) She seeks $2
million in damages. (/d. at 11.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court must “liberally construe[ ]” pleadings by pro se parties, and interpret their
complaints to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Nevertheless, a complaint still must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is
plausible on its face if it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While “detailed
factual allegations” are not required, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” /d. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action when the action “(i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
action “is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when
allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff seems to be claiming that she was improperly placed in guardianship, and
that Victoria Jones, presumably her guardian, has caused her emotional distress, and that
unnamed people are insulting her and have recorded her without her permission. The complaint,
which names the CIA, Donald Trump, and others, does not state a plausible claim under any
standard. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible”). Thus, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Given the allegations about guardianship, the complaint raises the issue of the plaintiffs
competence. Therefore, I dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice. Compare Huggins a
Devane & Groder, 2014 WL 3971803, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015) (dismissing pro se
complaint with prejudice because amendment would be futile), with Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous.
Auth.,, 564 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding that even if “it is clear that no substantial claim
could be asserted on behalf of the [plaintiff],” a district court “may dismiss the complaint, but
without prejudice” when a plaintiff may be considered incompetent).
CONCLUSION
The plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed without prejudice under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court encourages the plaintiff to make an appointment with the
Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project which provides limited representation to pro se litigants
in this district.! 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this action.
SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
AnnM.Donnelly
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 17, 2019
' The Clerk of Court will mail a copy of the Pro Se Legal Assistance Project flyer attached to this Order
to the plaintiff.
Fass SecHOLCoal ea RO) [eer
The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project (the “Project”) is a free service offered by the
City Bar Justice Center of the New York City Bar Association. The Project provides free in-
formation, advice, and limited-scope legal assistance to non-incarcerated, pro se litigants in
the Eastern District of New York. The Project staff work for the City Bar Justice Center, not
for the United States District Court.
Services We Can Provide:
e Explain federal court procedures and rules involved in your case.
e Provide brief legal counseling.
e Advise you about potential federal claims prior to filing suit.
e Review draft pleadings and correspondence with the court.
e Give referrals to legal, governmental and social services.
What does “Limited-Scope” Mean?
“Limited-scope” legal assistance means that even though the Project attorney may provide
you information, advice, and some legal assistance, she will not be the lawyer representing
you on your case. You will still act as your own lawyer unless you retain a lawyer on your
own.
Appointments and Hours
The Project attorney meets with pro se litigants by appointment. Our office is located on the
ground floor of the Brooklyn courthouse for the Eastern District of New York in Room N-
108.
Appointments are available Monday through Thursday.
To schedule an appointment please call 212-382-4729 or stop by the office. We make every
effort to return calls within two business days.
Cat Itaya, Esq. Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project Ge
Project Director c/o U.S. District Court, EDNY
Tel: 212-382-4729 225 Cadman Plaza East CIry BAR
Brooklyn, NY 11201 JU STICE
David Preciado (212) 382-4729
Project Coordinator www.citybarjusticecenter.org C E N IT E R
Tel: 212-382-4743 Ea