Quinones v. Lydig Shopping Center

Background

The action was transferred to the Southern District of New York from the Eastern District of New York. The court had previously allowed Hilaria J. Quinones to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).

Quinones sued more than two dozen stores, restaurants, gyms, schools, and other entities. The complaint alleged “suspicious illegal organized crime activity and corruption,” gangs, and underground cult activity involving the listed defendants and others. Quinones stated that she and her dependent children were victims, but she did not identify the relief she sought.

Legal standard

Under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented litigants’ pleadings generously, those pleadings still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A claim is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, including allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. A claim can also be frivolous when it rests on a legal theory that has no arguable basis.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Quinones’s allegations did not plausibly allege a violation of her rights. It stated that, even if she had uncovered evidence of cults or criminal activity or had been a victim of criminal activity, the remedy described in the opinion was to report that conduct to law-enforcement authorities. The complaint did not allege facts suggesting that any of the dozens of defendants had committed a civil tort.

The court also explained that Quinones could not initiate an arrest or prosecution because the decision to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor. It therefore found that the allegations failed to state a claim for relief and were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, filed under the IFP statute, for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that further amendment could not cure the defects. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.