Void-Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JANIESE VOID-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

. 26-CV-5493 (GBD)

-against-

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

YOUSSEF AMRANI, et al.,

Defendants.

GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff resides in Kings County, New York, and is appearing pro se. She brings suit against

Youssef Amrani and Nasser Bourita, both identified as associated with the Consulate General of

the Kingdom of Morocco in New York; Imam Mohamed Abdelati, of the Bridgeport Islamic

Center; Rey, Peter J, Orfanakos of the St. Barbara Greek Orthodox Church; Rabbi Peretz

Robinson; and Congregation Ahavath Achim, (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 3, 8-9.) Plaintiff invokes

this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and identifies her claims as “breach

of contract,” “18 USC Ch. 11,” and the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA). (Ud. at 33, 61.)

By order dated June 30, 2026, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis “IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees, On July 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint against the same parties, (Am. Compl., ECF No. 6,) and the Court treats the complaint

and amended complaint together as the operative complaint. The Court dismisses the operative

complaint for the reasons set forth below.

EK FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following allegations are drawn from the complaint and amended complaint.’ Plaintiff

alleges that in 2019, “ULN. intelligence told the plaintiff that she was abducted from her biological

' The Court quotes from the complaint and amended complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and

mother in Monrovia, Liberia when she was an infant in 1977 and that she is not a U.S. citizen.”

(Compl. at 12.) Plaintiff contends that “former CIA Director, President George H.W. Bush is

responsible for this illegal and fraudulent intercountry adoption.”” (/d.) She alleges that the U.S.

Department of State and Liberian officials during the Tolbert administration, were connected to

her removal from Liberia. (Ud. at 14.) “{T]Jhe United States abducted the plaintiff from her

biological mother in Liberia and subsequently placed her in an orphanage in Sierra Leone, where

Christian Alusine Kamara-Taylor was the Prime Minister... .” Cd.) She asserts that “[a] White

European family visiting Spain confirmed that [Plaintiffs] biological mother was at a market in

Monrovia, when an individual furtively picked Plaintiff up and left the market.” Ud. at 12.) Until

now, Plaintiff has not had “the information to demand repatriation to her multimillionaire

biological family in Liberia.” (Ud) Plaintiff claims the Government of Mexico and the U.S.

Department of State verified her 1977 abduction, and that U.S. officials discouraged Liberian

assistance for repatriation. (/d. at 12, 17.)

In 1983, when Plaintiff was six, she alleges that she was sexually assaulted in Bridgeport,

Connecticut by individuals identified as Willie and Wilmer Quarles. (/d. at 26.) She further states

that “Annette Void & Willie James Brown gave the plaintiff’s .. . underwear to Bill Casey in 1983

so that Reagan & Casey could force the U.S. Congress to negotiate with the Soviet Union.” (/d.

at 27.) In 1987, therapists from the Child Guidance Center created fraudulent notes implying that

there had been familial abuse. Ud. at 25.)

Plaintiff’s adoptive mother, Annette Void, rented apartments on the second and third floors

of 63 Lewis Street in Bridgeport, CT, believing that University of Bridgeport students would live

punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise.

* President George H,W. Bush was not named as a defendant in this action.

there. (id. at 32.) Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Bridgeport Islamic Center, St. Barbara’s Greek

Orthodox Church, and Congregation Ahavath Achim, in coordination with the Moroccan

Consulate, used the apartments to film minors engaged in sexual acts with adults. (Ud. at 33.)

Defendants allegedly did so as part of blackmail and bribery schemes targeting Charles Taylor, his

associates, and entities linked to Plaintiff. (/d.) In March 2026, while in Morocco, Plaintiff learned

that Defendants had been tenants at 63 Lewis Street and had engaged in child sexual exploitation

activities. (Ud. at 35.) Plaintiff claims that she has suffered reputational harm due to guilt by

association with activities at 63 Lewis Street. Ud. at 36.) □

Plaintiff’s 139-page complaint includes extensive background information about her

planned business ventures. “Plaintiff is launching a quantum computing and specialty analytical

chemistry company, Acuity, a company that primarily utilizes photons and bosons to measure the

geological components found in dirt and rocks.” (/d.) She asserts that defendants sought to extract

proprietary quantum computing technology from the Government of Russia through coercive

schemes. (/d. at 33.) Plaintiff states that she does not wish to be a U-S. citizen and has sought

yepatriation assistance from Mexico and Liberia since learning of the abduction. (/d. at 17, 29.)

Plaintiff further alleges that her:

biological father Charles Taylor and her adoptive father’s Willie James Brown’s

involvement as a CIA contractor resulted in the defendants contriving a weird

bribery demand conspiracy that promoted individuals within their communities that

wanted to sexually exploit children and young adults. The conspiracy may be

comnected to the U.S, Department of State Iranian Detainees and Iran-Contra. The

plaintiff’s adoptive father’s oncologist became the Chief White House physician to

presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as a result of the Iran-Contra

investigation.

(id. at 10.)

Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract arising from alleged misuse of the rental

premises. (/d. at 33.) She invokes the FEPA, alleging that defendants are acting on behalf of

foreign entities and have solicited or demanded bribes connected to business advantages. (/d. at

61-62.) Plaintiff cites “18 U.S.C. Chapter 11,” alleging bribery-related offenses tied to unspecified

corruption. (/d. at 61.)

Plaintiff seeks damages for harms resulting from alleged bribery, blackmail, and sexual

exploitation activities. (Ud. at 45.) She also demands criminal liability for defendants in

recognition for their alleged solicitation of bribes, unlawful contact with minors, and corruption of

minors. (Ud. at 61-62.)

Plaintiff’s amended complaint makes similar arguments and seeks similar relief.

Il STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any 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). This Court must also dismiss a

complaint when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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) (per curiam) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id, at 475 (ettation omitted), has its limits—

to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Wi. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED

Under the IFP statute, a court must dismiss an action if it determines that the action is

frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)\2)(B)). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”

Denton v, Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

A complaint is “‘factually frivolous’ if the sufficiently well-pleaded facts are ‘clearly

baseless’— that is, if they are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ or ‘delusional.’” Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d

364, 368 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33) (finding allegations that set forth a

fantastical alternative history of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks frivolous and baseless);

see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989) (holding that a claim is frivolous when

it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437(“[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)).

Moreover, a court has “no obligation to entertain pure speculation and conjecture.” Gallop, 642

F.3d at 368.

Plaintiff’s allegations linking alleged events in her childhood to the Iran-Contra

investigation, matters involving the CIA and President George H. Bush, and the alleged extraction

of proprietary quantum computing technology from the Government of Russia are purely

speculative and implausible. See Lefkowitz v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No, 13-CV-6414 (KPF),

2014 WL 2619815, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2014) (holding that complaint must set forth facts

showing basis for information and belief); Johnson v, Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr, 686 F. Supp.

□□

2d 259, 266 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that even where necessary evidence is in “exclusive

control of the defendant, .. . plaintiff must still set forth the factual basis for that belief’),

Plaintiff’s allegations rise to the level of the irrational and the operative complaint must be

dismissed as frivolous. See Kraft v. City of New York, 823 F. App’x 62, 64 (2d Cir, 2020) (affirming

sua sponte dismissal of complaint as frivolous where plaintiff alleged that he was subject to“24-

hour, multi-jurisdictional surveillance by federal ‘fusion centers’ and the New York State

Intelligence Center, which put a ‘digital marker’ on him in order to collect his personal data and

harass him’).

IV. LEAVE TO AMEND IS DENIED

District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a complaint to cure its

defects, but leave to amend may be denied if the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to

amend but has failed to cure the complaint’s deficiencies. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514

F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the

defects in the operative complaint cannot be cured with a further amendment, the Court declines

to grant Plaintiff another opportunity to amend.

Vv. WARNING

Plaintiff brought two prior actions asserting conspiracy claims, and both were dismissed.

See Void-Brown v. FBI, No, 19-CV-8594 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2019) (dismissing as frivolous

fee-paid action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the

City of New York, and Dr. Hedy Augenbraun for an alleged conspiracy to make it appear as though

Plaintiff was engaged in prostitution); Mord-Brown v. FBI, No. 2:19-CV-286 (APG) (VCF) (D. Nev.

June 18, 2019) (adopting in part Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that court deny IFP and

dismiss as frivolous claims that “the FBI, Mr. Alvia, and a hotel were involved in a conspiracy to

inake it appear as though Plaintiff was engaged in prostitution in order to blackmail Plaintiff”).

This Court warns Plaintiff that further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this court may

result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions IFP unless she receives prior permission

from the court to file a new action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Court dismisses this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2)(B)G).

Further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this court may result in an order barring Plaintiff

from filing new actions IFP unless she receives prior permission from the court to file a new action.

See 28 US.C. § 1651.

This 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

This Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2026

New York, New York b Dow

United States District Judge

3 Plaintiff's second amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to notify the court of

her address change. Void-Brown, No. 19-CV-0286 (ECF No, 27).

q □