Soto v. State of New York

Background

Luis Danny Soto, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against more than 400 defendants. The defendants included states and foreign countries, government officials, government departments, local governments and agencies, police and fire departments, courts, private entities, and other organizations. The opinion identifies the State of New York as a defendant and lists many other defendants.

Soto alleged that equipment used to treat or study medical and psychological conditions was installed and used without his consent beginning in 2020. He alleged that government officials and others used the equipment against him in a sexual manner, allowed other people to use it, sent him videos with sexual or disturbing content, and caused incarcerated people to communicate with him. He also alleged that officials arranged for impersonators to pretend to be him in the United States and internationally and to commit crimes using his name. Soto sought unspecified money damages.

Legal standard

Because Soto had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to review his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that it must read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Factual allegations may be considered frivolous when they are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or wholly incredible.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Soto did not provide plausible factual support for his allegations that federal, state, and local officials subjected him to medical experiments, sent him inappropriate videos, and impersonated him to commit crimes. It determined that the claims rose to the level of irrational allegations and therefore were frivolous.

The court also considered whether Soto should be allowed to amend the complaint again. Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to correct defects, the court found that the defects in Soto’s amended complaint could not be cured through amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed Soto’s amended complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to grant leave to amend and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.