Jiang v. New York Police Department

Background

Ziyao Jiang filed 16 complaints in the Southern District of New York beginning April 27, 2025. The complaints named different private businesses, individuals, police departments, government agencies, and the government of China. The court stated that the complaints were substantially similar, generally one or two pages long, and sought millions of dollars for alleged murder, robbery, stalking, harassment, perjury, identity theft, and other misconduct. Many complaints attached photographs and lists of dates, locations, vehicles, and license plates. Jiang litigated without a lawyer, and the court had granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees in each action.

The order covered the complaints listed under 16 docket numbers, including the action against the New York City Police Department, No. 25-CV-3517. The court also referred to Jiang’s prior related proceedings in other federal courts, but those proceedings were not the matters being decided by this order.

Reasons for dismissal

The court applied the statute governing complaints filed without paying filing fees. That statute requires dismissal when a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also described the general requirement that a complaint contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court held that Jiang’s complaints did not satisfy the federal pleading rules. They cited no federal law, asserted no recognizable federal causes of action, and did not contain facts showing that any defendant personally participated in violating Jiang’s federally protected rights. Instead, according to the court, the complaints identified nearby people, vehicles, and locations and then concluded without factual support that the defendants had harmed him.

The court separately found the allegations frivolous. It explained that Jiang alleged that private companies, individuals, police departments, county agencies in several states, and the Chinese government had harmed him, but provided no factual basis for those assertions. The court characterized the allegations as conclusory claims and suspicions rather than facts supporting a viable civil claim.

Disposition and filing restriction

The court dismissed all of the above-captioned complaints as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It denied the pending motions without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate them, and declined to grant leave to amend because it found no indication that amendment could produce a plausible federal claim.

The court also ordered Jiang to show cause within 30 days, by declaration, why he should not be barred from filing any future action without paying filing fees in this court unless he first obtained permission. The order did not yet impose that restriction. It stated that the restriction would take effect if Jiang failed to submit the declaration or if the declaration did not establish good cause. The court directed that the matters remain open while it considered the response.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.