Johnson v. Barr
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-08615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. Barr, Judge Wood dismissed Johnson’s complaint as frivolous after screening her fee-free filing.
Desiree Johnson, who litigated without a lawyer, and the named defendants, including William Pelham Barr and the unidentified person described as the U.S. Speaker or Representative for the original case.
What happened
In Johnson v. Barr, Desiree Johnson sued former Attorney General William Pelham Barr and an unidentified person described as a U.S. Speaker or Representative for the original case. She filed without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
Johnson asked for information from the Internal Revenue Service, PayPal, and three credit bureaus to be placed in a court order. She also requested “dog information,” Barr’s appearance to repeat her information, a very large payment, and hospital care for her injuries.
The court found that the complaint had no reasonable factual or legal basis and dismissed it as frivolous. Judge Kimba M. Wood also denied fee-free status for any appeal and directed the Clerk to enter a civil judgment.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Barr · No. 1:24-cv-08615
- Kimba Wood
- June 3, 2025
Background
Desiree Johnson filed the action without a lawyer against former Attorney General William Pelham Barr, whom she identified as her “attorney,” and an unknowable individual described as a “speaker” for the original case. The complaint said the relevant events occurred in New York City on October 31, 2024. The court had previously allowed Johnson to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Johnson asked for three things from each of the Internal Revenue Service, PayPal, and the three credit bureaus: disclosure information, information that might be on a court order, and “dog information” to be written on a court order. She also asked that Barr appear before a judge and court reporter to repeat her information concerning a remittance to the Treasury Department. Johnson requested a check for the full value of the United States and asked to be provided a hospital to address her injuries.
Legal standard
Under the federal statute governing cases filed without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. A frivolous claim lacks a reasonable basis in either law or fact. The court must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the filing.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Johnson’s allegations lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. It determined that the requests concerning Barr repeating Johnson’s information, adding “dog information” to a court order, and placing information from the Internal Revenue Service, PayPal, and credit bureaus into a court order were not rational. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Although courts ordinarily may allow a person without a lawyer to amend a complaint, the court concluded that amendment would be futile here. It did not direct Johnson to file an amended complaint. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter a civil judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.