Janczuk v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03661
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Janczuk v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and dismissed any conviction challenge without prejudice.
The dismissal affects Weronika E.K. Janczuk’s civil complaint against the United States, the Marshals of the USA, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Any challenge to her conviction or post-release-supervision proceedings was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that ruling did not bar refiling through the proper procedure.
What happened
In Janczuk v. United States, Weronika E.K. Janczuk sued the United States, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She described unusual sensory experiences and sought criminal investigations, confirmation of alibis, and investigation of what she called inverted stalking charges.
The court concluded that her allegations were irrational and did not show a valid legal basis for relief. It also explained that a civil lawsuit was not the proper way to challenge her federal conviction or ongoing post-release-supervision proceedings.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous, refused to allow an amended complaint, and dismissed any challenge to the conviction or supervision proceedings without prejudice. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal and warned that further meritless filings could lead to restrictions on future fee-free lawsuits.
The detailed version
- Janczuk v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-03661
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 25, 2024
Background
Weronika E.K. Janczuk, who was representing herself, sued the United States, the Marshals of the USA, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Janczuk alleged that she experienced daily sensory, memory, motor, and cognitive changes. She also alleged that she heard voices that she believed were technologically generated versions of other people’s voices. The complaint referred to her criminal case and asserted that the federal government should investigate alleged stalking and related conduct. She sought criminal investigations, immediate confirmation of alibis, and a police investigation into what she called inverted stalking charges.
The opinion also notes that Janczuk had pleaded guilty to making threatening interstate communications. Charges for cyberstalking had been dismissed. The criminal case included ongoing proceedings concerning post-release supervision.
Court’s analysis
Because Janczuk was proceeding without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court stated that it had read the self-represented complaint liberally, but concluded that the allegations rose to the level of irrationality and that no apparent legal theory supported the requested relief against the defendants. The court therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous.
The court separately addressed any possible attempt to challenge Janczuk’s criminal conviction through this civil case. It stated that such a challenge must instead be brought through the legal procedure for seeking relief from a federal conviction. The court dismissed any challenge to the conviction or to the ongoing post-release-supervision proceedings without prejudice.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to allow Janczuk to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. Any challenge to the judgment of conviction or to the ongoing post-release-supervision proceedings was dismissed without prejudice.
The court warned that continued filing of actions found to be frivolous or without merit could lead to an order requiring Janczuk to explain why she should not be barred from filing new civil actions without paying filing fees in advance. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.