Song v. Hoch
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Song v. Hoch, Judge Swain dismissed Eugenia Song’s complaint as frivolous, denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, and warned of possible filing restrictions.
Eugenia Song’s case was dismissed; the order also warned her about possible future restrictions on filing actions without prepaying fees and denied that status for an appeal.
What happened
In Song v. Hoch, Eugenia Song sued Emily Hoch and asked for money damages. Song represented herself and claimed that Hoch’s research using military technology spread false information and endangered Song and her family.
The court found that the complaint provided no specific facts explaining how Hoch’s research harmed Song or anyone else. It concluded that the allegations were irrational, lacked a factual or legal basis, and were frivolous under the statute governing cases filed without prepaying fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow Song to amend it, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court warned that future frivolous cases could lead to a restriction on Song’s ability to file cases without paying fees, and denied that fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Song v. Hoch · No. 1:24-cv-02532
- Laura Swain
- July 3, 2024
Background
Eugenia Song, representing herself, brought the action against Emily Hoch and invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Song stated that she resided in either Texas or Pennsylvania and that Hoch resided in Virginia. Song alleged that Hoch’s health-services research at the Rand Corporation, which Song said used military technology, knowingly used fraudulent misinformation against Song and her family. Song also alleged that Hoch endangered people’s lives, had been named in a Federal Bureau of Investigation complaint concerning misuse of a professional license, and continued the conduct after Song asked her by email to stop.
The complaint referred to “320 civil COA code – assault with militarized weapon on computer (tort claim)” and sought money damages. The court had previously allowed Song to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. A frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact; factual allegations may be frivolous when they are clearly baseless, fanciful, or wholly incredible.
The court concluded that Song’s allegations did not plausibly allege a violation of her rights. The complaint supplied no specific facts showing how Hoch’s research caused harm to Song or anyone else. The court therefore found that the allegations lacked a factual or legal basis, were irrational, and consisted of conclusory claims and suspicions. The court also stated that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to grant Song permission to amend the complaint.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Song’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court warned that, if Song filed future actions in that court that were frivolous or failed to state a claim, it might bar her from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission from the court. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Song permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. It directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.