Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2025

Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-03855
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hilaria J. Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc., Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

Who this affects

Hilaria J. Quinones’s complaint was dismissed, and her fee-free status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The defendants were not required to proceed to a merits trial in this action.

What happened

In Hilaria J. Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc., Quinones sued Biolife Plasma Services Inc. and two other named defendants, alleging civil-rights violations, false accusations, defamation, threats, invasion, and harassment. She did not identify the relief she sought.

The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying filing fees. It concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show a violation of Quinones’s rights and dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The court also declined to allow an amended complaint because it found that the defects could not be fixed.

Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered judgment entered and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quinones v. Biolife Plasma Services Inc · No. 1:25-cv-03855
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 25, 2025

Background

The action was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had previously granted Quinones permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Quinones sued Biolife Plasma Services Inc., “CIA Cult Under Covers,” and “Secret Service NY, NJ.” She alleged “all violations of all sorts,” including violations of civil legal rights and income, false accusations, defamation, threats to call the police, illegal invasion, and harassment. The complaint did not identify the relief she wanted.

Court’s analysis

Under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court must also dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief. The court concluded that Quinones’s allegations did not plausibly allege a violation of her rights. It therefore dismissed the claims under the statute for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.

The court explained that it generally gives a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but that leave is not required when amendment would be futile. It found that the defects could not be cured through further amendment and declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and as frivolous. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Quinones fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.