From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serkez v. The/Our Gov't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 3, 2020
20-CV-0869 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-0869 (CM)

02-03-2020

JOSEPH SERKEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE/OUR GOVERNMENT, Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL :

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court's federal question jurisdiction. By order dated February 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (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, 32-33 (1992) (holding that "finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible"); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 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).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joseph Serkez brings this action under the Court's federal question jurisdiction, alleging that the government has violated his federal right to "freedom." (ECF 2, at 2.) The violations have occurred "constantly," and Plaintiff's claims have arisen "domestically and overseas." (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff attaches to his complaint a list that includes, among other things, the following: "circum[cis]ion[;] cr[e]mation[;] spreading of ashes banning criminals from town[;] funding for clean energy agro and cryogynetics," etc. (Id. at 10.)

DISCUSSION

Even when read with the "special solicitude" due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474-75, Plaintiff's claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which he can rely. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.

District 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 Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is warned that continued frivolous litigation in this Court will result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis unless he receives prior permission. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: February 3, 2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

COLLEEN McMAHON

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Serkez v. The/Our Gov't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 3, 2020
20-CV-0869 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020)
Case details for

Serkez v. The/Our Gov't

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SERKEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE/OUR GOVERNMENT, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 3, 2020

Citations

20-CV-0869 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020)

Citing Cases

Serkez v. GOV Agencys

Plaintiff's prior similar suit, Serkez v. The/Our Government, No. 20-CV-0869 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020), was…