“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))
How later courts described this case
- “A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
In Re: Cases Filed by Fritz Gerald Toussaint MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CV-00551, 23-CV-00778,
23-CV-01413, 23-CV-01619,
23-CV-01620, 23-CV-01621,
23-CV-01622, 23-CV-01742,
23-CV-01744, 23-CV-01746,
23-CV-03958
---------------------------------------------------------------X
DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Fritz Gerald Toussaint, proceeding pro se, filed the eleven above-referenced
actions against various defendants. The Court grants Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma
pauperis in each of the eleven actions; consolidates the eleven actions solely for the purpose of
this Order; and, for the reasons set forth below, dismisses the Complaints in each of the eleven
actions (collectively, the “Complaints”).1
1 The Complaint in each action is filed at ECF No. 1 and is signed by Plaintiff. The information
provided by Plaintiff on the pre-printed Complaint forms is handwritten and is, in certain
places, illegible. In addition to suffering from some illegibility, the Complaints are generally
difficult to decipher.
In six of the eleven actions, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Adliem
Micah Toussaint, a/k/a Fritz Gerald Toussaint v. TD Bank NA, No. 23-CV-00551 (DG) (LB),
ECF No. 2; Toussaint v. Off. of the Att’y Gen. of State of N.Y., No. 23-CV-00778 (DG) (LB),
ECF No. 2; Toussaint v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 23-CV-01742 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 2;
Toussaint v. Jetblue, No. 23-CV-01744 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 2; Toussaint v. Port Auth. of N.Y.
& N.J., No. 23-CV-01746 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 2; Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-03958
(DG) (LB), ECF No. 2. Those motions are granted.
In five of the eleven actions, Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. See generally dockets in Toussaint v. Obama, No. 23-CV-01413
(DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Pearl Asset LLC, No. 23-CV-01619 (DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Off. of
the Dir. of Nat’l, No. 23-CV-01620 (DG) (LB); Adlitem Protetor Toussaint v. Consumer Fin.
Bureau, No. 23-CV-01621 (DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-01622 (DG) (LB).
Dismissal without prejudice of these five actions would be warranted on the basis of this filing
deficiency alone. The Court, however, sua sponte grants Plaintiff in forma pauperis status in
each of these five actions for the purpose of this Order and dismisses these five actions on the
BACKGROUND
Familiarity with the procedural history and background of the instant eleven actions and
with Plaintiff’s litigation history in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York is assumed herein.2
By Memorandum & Order dated June 2, 2023 in Toussaint v. Lyft, No. 23-CV-03750
(DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Home Depot, No. 23-CV-03751 (DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Bank of
America, No. 23-CV-03752 (DG) (LB); and Toussaint v. Apple Inc., No. 23-CV-03753 (DG)
(LB) (the “June 2, 2023 Order”), the Court dismissed the operative Complaint in each of the four
actions, having determined that venue did not properly lie in the Eastern District of New York.
See Toussaint v. Lyft, No. 23-CV-03750 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 4; Toussaint v. Home Depot, No.
23-CV-03751 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 4; Toussaint v. Bank of America, No. 23-CV-03752 (DG)
(LB), ECF No. 4; Toussaint v. Apple Inc., No. 23-CV-03753 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 4. The Court
declined to transfer any of the four actions to another judicial district, having determined that
transfer would not be in the interest of justice as each Complaint, even liberally construed, failed
to state a claim on which relief may be granted – and indeed, appeared to be frivolous. See June
2, 2023 Order at 6 & n.7. In the June 2, 2023 Order, the Court also directed Plaintiff to show
cause, in writing, by June 23, 2023, why he should not be enjoined from filing any new action
grounds set forth below.
2 The Court incorporates by reference the discussion of Plaintiff’s litigation history that is
contained in the Memorandum & Order dated March 17, 2023 in Toussaint v. Institute for
Family Health, No. 23-CV-01745 (DG) (LB) (the “March 17, 2023 Order”). See Toussaint v.
Inst. for Family Health, No. 23-CV-01745 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 4. In the March 17, 2023
Order, the Court noted, inter alia, that “Plaintiff has filed more than 30 cases in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York since February 2022.” See March
17, 2023 Order at 5. Numerous of those cases were transferred for lack of venue. See March
17, 2023 Order at 5-6; see also dockets for cases referenced in March 17, 2023 Order as having
been transferred.
seeking in forma pauperis status without first obtaining leave of Court. See June 2, 2023 Order
at 7-8.
By Memorandum & Order dated July 5, 2023 in Toussaint v. Lyft, No. 23-CV-03750
(DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Home Depot, No. 23-CV-03751 (DG) (LB); Toussaint v. Bank of
America, No. 23-CV-03752 (DG) (LB); and Toussaint v. Apple Inc., No. 23-CV-03753 (DG)
(LB), the Court enjoined Plaintiff from filing any new action seeking in forma pauperis status in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York without first obtaining
leave of Court, noting, inter alia, that Plaintiff had failed to comply with – or file any response
to – the Court’s directive to show cause. See generally Toussaint v. Lyft, No. 23-CV-03750
(DG) (LB), ECF No. 6; Toussaint v. Home Depot, No. 23-CV-03751 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 6;
Toussaint v. Bank of America, No. 23-CV-03752 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 6; Toussaint v. Apple Inc.,
No. 23-CV-03753 (DG) (LB), ECF No. 6.
The instant eleven actions were filed prior to the Court’s issuance of the filing injunction
on July 5, 2023.
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes the Complaints in the
instant eleven actions. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Adliem Micah Toussaint, a/k/a Fritz Gerald Toussaint v. TD Bank NA, No. 23-CV-
00551 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Adliem Micah Toussaint, a/k/a Fritz Gerald Toussaint v. TD Bank NA,
No. 23-CV-00551 (DG) (LB) alleges that “TD Bank has been through illegal acts stopping
[Plaintiff] from accumulating cash compou[nding] the cum[]ulative value of it such that
[Plaintiff’s] nephew [Plaintiff’s] sons as well as members of charitable organizations . . . are
being deprived of the compounded value of prudent investing that is just as well as timely
unimpe[]ded with co[]er[c]ive methods or tactic[]s like false information or closing accounts for
fake reasons man[u]factured to effect equal finan[c]ial protection.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a jury trial and “60 million yen @ AO 2023 daily @ 7 percent
compounded.”
Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant resides in the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the
Eastern District of New York.
Toussaint v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, No. 23-CV-00778
(DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York,
No. 23-CV-00778 (DG) (LB) alleges, inter alia, that “while operating under the color of law
(FERPA) the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York [at] the behest of the State
University of New York deprived [Plaintiff] of equal protection;” that “throug[h] enforcement of
discriminatory policy that disproportionately affect minority student ‘SUNY’ depressed
graduation rate of Latino Brown and Black studen[ts] for years;” and that “SUNY implemente[d]
an aggressive pred[a]tory regime that prioritized collection of accounts and not degree
completion.”
Plaintiff seeks discovery, “civil jud[g]ment against the office of student recovery for the
sum of USD 33 million via ACH electronic fund transfer,” and summary judgment.
Plaintiff lists “The Capitol” in Albany, New York as the address for Defendant Office of
the Attorney General of the State of New York. Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant
resides in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff does not allege that any events or
omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District of New York.
Toussaint v. Obama, No. 23-CV-01413 (DG) (LB)
In Toussaint v. Obama, No. 23-CV-01413 (DG) (LB), Plaintiff leaves entirely blank the
section of the Complaint titled “Statement of Claim,” but alleges in the section titled “Injuries”
that Plaintiff has sustained “multigenerational economic damages;” that Plaintiff’s “finances,”
“family,” and “assets” have been “near the point of anni[hi]lation;” and that “his personal friends
his network were destroyed his social media account wer[e] raided relentlessly because of
political views of the Plaintif[f],” in violation of “USC 4.”
Plaintiff seeks discovery, a jury trial, “privacy protection adherence measures,” and
“1333333337 GBP (Bri[]tish pounds).”
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the
Eastern District of New York.
Toussaint v. Pearl Asset LLC, No. 23-CV-01619 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Pearl Asset LLC, No. 23-CV-01619 (DG) (LB) alleges,
inter alia, that “an unknown agent of not yet disclosed agency of the US Government” deprived
Plaintiff of due process; that “while acting as a District Court Judge John Michael Vasquez
deprived [Plaintiff] of ADA protection;” and that after luring Plaintiff from San Diego,
California, “the Defendant as well as their agents unlawfully abducted [Plaintiff],” “they falsified
police reports and wrongfully accused [Plaintiff],” and “the[y] trafficked [Plaintiff] to the State
of New York using falsified evidence.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a public trial, “immediate return of pos[s]ession of [Plaintiff’s]
property,” “7 million GBP,” and summary judgment.
Plaintiff lists an address in Kearny, New Jersey as the address for Defendants. Plaintiff
does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern
District of New York.
Toussaint v. Office of the Director of National, No. 23-CV-01620 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Office of the Director of National, No. 23-CV-01620 (DG)
(LB) alleges, inter alia, that “federal official and their agent deprived [Plaintiff] of equal
protection of USC 4 protections;” that they attacked his “cellular as well as [his] electronic
devices” and “deprived [him] of educational access when they t[a]mpered with [his]
cybersecurity education;” and that “they deprived [him] of freedom of religion when they forced
[his] unplanned departure from the State of California.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, discovery, a public trial, an “enforcement order from Federal
Marshal Office NY Office,” “14 million GBP,” and “brisk removal of unlawfully procured
tenants.” Plaintiff also requests “transfer to the Southern District of California.”
Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant resides in the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the
Eastern District of New York.
Adlitem Protetor Toussaint v. Consumer Financial Bureau, No. 23-CV-01621 (DG)
(LB)
The Complaint in Adlitem Protetor Toussaint v. Consumer Financial Bureau, No. 23-
CV-01621 (DG) (LB) alleges, inter alia, that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “while
having the regulatory obligation of protecting consumer from fraud and abuse,” “performed a
p[er]fun[c]tory review of [Plaintiff’s] complaint” and “hastily closed it violating [his] right of
equal protection as well as [his] right of substantive due process” and that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau violated Plaintiff’s “First Amendment Freedom.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, oral argument, a jury trial, an evidentiary hearing, and
“1333333.”
Plaintiff lists an address in “Washington” as Defendant’s address. Plaintiff does not
allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District of
New York.
Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-01622 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-01622 (DG) (LB) alleges, inter alia,
that Verizon, “while operating as a contra[c]tor of the Government utilizing public resource and
tax revenue with blatant disregard for the First [Amendment],” “deprived [Plaintiff] of freedom
of speech;” that employees and agents of Verizon “fraudulently added phone numbers” and
“block[ed] [Plaintiff’s] attempts [at] managing his account;” and that “Plaintiff’[s] account was
discon[n]ected without cause.”
Plaintiff seeks discovery, “audited financial statements,” a jury trial, “immediat[e]
reinstatement of service,” and “13 million Brit[]ish pounds.”
Plaintiff lists an address in New York, New York as Defendant’s address. Plaintiff does
not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District
of New York.
Toussaint v. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-CV-01742 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-CV-01742 (DG)
(LB) alleges, inter alia, that “the Food and Drug Administration deprived [Plaintiff] of an
effective medicine based on discrimination orchestrated from the disability based stigma;” that
“the policies that regulator devised caused [Plaintiff’s] abduction detention and targeting as
perpetual client;” and that the “FDA ensure creation of social stigma once they required that only
a psychiatrist refill [Adderall].”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a public trial, discovery, “a judicial decree allowing
prescription of Addera[ll] from family doctors or urgent care,” and “10 billion GBP.”
Plaintiff lists “Washington DC” as Defendant’s address. Plaintiff does not allege that any
events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District of New York.
Toussaint v. Jetblue, No. 23-CV-01744 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Jetblue, No. 23-CV-01744 (DG) (LB) alleges, inter alia,
that “after purchasing an airline ticket Plaintif[f] was deprived of the capa[]city of boarding the
aircr[a]ft using pretextua[]l argument of a Corona test was needed before he could depart for
Haiti the ancestr[al] land of his family.”
Plaintiff seeks discovery, oral argument, and “7 million HGT.”
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the
Eastern District of New York.
Toussaint v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 23-CV-01746 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 23-CV-
01746 (DG) (LB) alleges that “while operating under the Constitution Defendant violated the
Interstate Commerce Act when it began tolling roads.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, discovery, a jury trial, “audited financial statements,” and “1
trillion pounds sterling.”
Plaintiff lists addresses in New York, New York as Defendants’ addresses. Plaintiff does
not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District
of New York.
Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-03958 (DG) (LB)
The Complaint in Toussaint v. Verizon, No. 23-CV-03958 (DG) (LB) alleges, inter alia,
that Defendant Verizon’s authorized retailer “created an account with information for
[Plaintiff’s] firm witho[ut] [his] permission,” “didn’t provide [him] any equipment,” and “charge
taxes that weren’t due” and that “employees and agents of Verizon operated under the color of
law when they falsely claimed that []they had a fear for their live that pretext was used to deprive
the Plaintif[f] of his statement and to conceal criminal acts of fraud.”
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, discovery, a jury trial, and “3,333777 million US dollars.”
Plaintiff lists an address in New York, New York as the address for Defendants. Plaintiff
does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern
District of New York.
DISCUSSION
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391(b) (“Section 1391(b)”), in relevant part,
provides that a civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “(2) a
judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred.”
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1406(a) (“Section 1406(a)”) provides that “[t]he
district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district
shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in
which it could have been brought.” “When considering whether a transfer would serve the
interest of justice, [the court] must weigh ‘the equities of dismissing a claim when it could be
transferred.’” Ruiz v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269, 276 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Liriano v. United
States, 95 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1996)). The decision “whether to dismiss or transfer a case
‘lies within the sound discretion of the district court.’” See Blakely v. Lew, 607 F. App’x 15, 18
(2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1026 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Here, in each of the instant eleven actions, venue does not properly lie in the Eastern
District of New York as Plaintiff has not satisfied either of the relevant requirements of Section
1391(b): Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in the Eastern District of New York
and does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern
District of New York. See generally Complaints.
The Court declines to transfer any of the eleven actions to another judicial district as
transfer would not be in the interest of justice. Each of the Complaints, even liberally construed,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.3
The Complaints are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-referenced
eleven actions.
For the reasons set forth above, the Complaints in the above-referenced eleven actions are
dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment accordingly and to close these eleven cases.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
3 Indeed, the Complaints appear to be frivolous. See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir.
2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’”
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21-
CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2021).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Diane Gujarati __
DIANE GUJARATI
United States District Judge
Dated: October 10, 2023
Brooklyn, New York