Soto v. Tesla Inc.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-01544
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Soto v. Tesla Inc., Judge Stanton dismissed Soto’s pro se complaint as frivolous because its allegations lacked plausible factual support.
Luis Danny Soto’s action against Tesla Inc. and the other named defendants was dismissed as frivolous, and the court declined to allow amendment.
What happened
Luis Danny Soto sued Tesla Inc. and about 32 other defendants, alleging that they experimented on him, harassed him, shared his personal information, and sent him disturbing videos. He sought at least $65 billion in damages.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous after finding that Soto provided no plausible factual support for those allegations. The court also declined to allow him to amend the complaint because it found the defects could not be fixed.
Judge Stanton ordered the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion identifies the dismissal as one required for a complaint filed without paying fees when the allegations are irrational or lack an arguable basis in fact or law.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Tesla Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01544
- Louis Stanton
- June 4, 2025
Background
Luis Danny Soto, appearing without a lawyer, sued Tesla Inc. and approximately 32 defendants, including Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), X Corp., OpenAI, Inc., News Corporation, Fox Television Stations, LLC, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Elon Musk, Keith Rupert Murdoch, and Lachlan Keith Murdoch.
Soto alleged that the defendants had engaged in illicit conduct and had caused companies, universities, news and entertainment companies, and governments to assault, threaten, harass, stalk, endanger, and discriminate against him. He further alleged that equipment had been installed in his home, that Musk had made a $65 billion deal involving the use of that equipment, and that SpaceX and OpenAI had used him as an unwilling test subject in space simulators. He also alleged that Musk, Murdoch, and company employees directed law-enforcement officers to harass and intimidate him, obtain and share his personal information, and send him videos containing sexual and macabre content. Soto sought at least $65 billion in damages.
Court’s analysis
The court had previously allowed Soto to proceed without paying filing fees. Under the federal statute governing such cases, the court had to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.
The court concluded that Soto’s allegations did not plausibly show a violation of his rights. It found that his claims that Musk, Murdoch, and their companies had experimented on him, directed others to harass and intimidate him, and sent him inappropriate videos lacked plausible factual support and were irrational. The court therefore determined that the claims were frivolous—meaning they lacked an arguable basis in fact or law.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to give Soto permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Effect
The opinion ends this action at the district-court level through dismissal of the complaint as frivolous. It does not identify a viable legal claim among the allegations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.