Strege v. Launching Nuclear Missiles kill all Planets People
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-02548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strege v. Launching Nuclear Missiles Kill All Planets People, Judge Stanton dismissed Strege’s complaint as frivolous after screening it.
Adam Strege’s action was dismissed, and the court declined to let him amend the complaint. The named defendants were not required to litigate the allegations because the case was dismissed at the screening stage.
What happened
In Strege v. Launching Nuclear Missiles Kill All Planets People, Adam Strege, representing himself, filed a complaint listing numerous individuals and entities and citing many federal statutes and constitutional provisions. The court said it was unclear whom Strege was suing or what relief he wanted.
The court found that the allegations were irrational and did not identify facts showing that any named defendant violated Strege’s rights. Because the complaint had no factual basis or legal theory supporting a claim, the court determined that it was frivolous under the law governing complaints filed without prepaying fees.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action as frivolous, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and declined to allow Strege to amend because the defects could not be fixed. The court also warned that further frivolous or abusive litigation could lead to restrictions on Strege’s ability to file future cases without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Strege v. Launching Nuclear Missiles kill all Planets People · No. 1:25-cv-02548
- Louis Stanton
- June 11, 2025
Background
Adam Strege filed the complaint without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The complaint named or referred to numerous individuals, agencies, companies, and other entities. It cited a wide range of statutes, including civil-rights, tort, criminal, antitrust, employment, disability, and federal tort laws, as well as several constitutional amendments.
The complaint included allegations involving nuclear missiles, harm to people and nature, alleged conduct in prisons and government buildings, and other events. It did not clearly identify which defendant was responsible for which conduct or specify the relief Strege sought. The court also noted that Strege had filed numerous similar cases in federal courts, including recent cases with complaints that other courts had found difficult to understand or frivolous. The cited prior related proceedings are not described here by their party captions because the current opinion uses a minimized caption for Strege.
Legal standard
Because Strege was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented claims over which the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law. The court also had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Strege’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. Although Strege cited many statutes and constitutional provisions, the court found that he did not allege facts showing that a particular defendant took, or failed to take, an action violating his rights. The court therefore found the complaint frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court considered whether Strege should receive an opportunity to amend the complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action, and warned Strege that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation in that court could result in an order requiring him to obtain advance court permission before filing new actions without paying fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.