Hankerson v. 23 and me

Background

Theresa Ann Hankerson filed the action using the court's general complaint form and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She sued the following defendants as identified in the complaint: “23 and me Breach Commissioner,” “Ancetry Genetic Date,” “B.G. Chinos Largest Genomics,” “Regent University,” “V.A. College,” “Access-A-Ride,” and “M.T.A. Commissioner.” Hankerson appeared without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Hankerson alleged that her DNA had been stolen and circulated on websites, that she had been targeted by online fraud and identity exploitation, and that her phone and email had been hacked. She also alleged that Regent University interfered with her online education, blocked her phone and student guide, and that Brooklyn financial aid had stolen $100,000 from her. She stated that she had reported the alleged conduct to the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She sought the arrest of people who she said violated her constitutional rights.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable legal or factual basis. The court explained that factual allegations are frivolous when they are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, that does not eliminate the requirement that the complaint provide factual support.

Court's analysis

The court found that Hankerson provided no facts supporting her assertion that the defendants stole and circulated her DNA to exploit her. It also found that the complaint contained no facts suggesting that the alleged actions were possible. The court stated that beliefs, however strongly held, are not facts and concluded that Hankerson's allegations were unsupported, implausible, conclusory claims and suspicions. It therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. All other pending matters were terminated, and the court directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hankerson permission to appeal without prepaying fees. It also warned that further nonmeritorious or frivolous litigation could result in an order requiring her to obtain permission before filing new actions.