Yakobu v. River Place II, LLC

Background

Ruth Terna Yakobu brought the action against River Place II, LLC; TFC Cornerstone Properties; and Microsoft Corp. She proceeded without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had granted that request on February 13, 2025.

According to the complaint, Yakobu's claims arose from February 2, 2022, through the present and involved the Maxx Apartments, Silver Towers apartments, and a Microsoft office in Times Square, New York. She alleged that her electronic devices were constantly hacked, that a neighbor simultaneously stomped on the floor, and that she received random phone calls while the hacking occurred. She said she reported the events to management at the Maxx apartment, but her reports were ignored.

Yakobu also alleged that she stored evidence of abnormal computer behavior on a laptop and external hard drive, but that someone entered her apartment and erased or tampered with the evidence. She alleged that multiple people stalked her and that strangers mocked her on New York streets. She said the behavior continued after she moved to Silver Towers. Yakobu contended that she suffered loss of employment, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. The complaint did not specify the relief she sought.

Court’s Analysis

Because Yakobu was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also noted that it had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that a complaint is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, and that courts do not have to entertain pure speculation or conjecture. The court stated that Yakobu provided no factual basis for asserting that the defendants were responsible for the alleged stalking, hacking, or tampering with her electronic devices. Even reading the complaint liberally, as courts generally do for people without lawyers, the court found that the allegations did not state a plausible claim for relief against the named defendants and that no legal theory supported the claims.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to grant Yakobu permission to amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured through amendment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.