Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-03999
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Friedeberg v. US Share Info Consultant Service LLC, Judge Stanton dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous after fee-free screening.
Donna L. Friedeberg’s action was dismissed, she was denied fee-free status for an appeal, and she was warned that future meritless filings could lead to restrictions on her ability to proceed without paying fees. US Share Info Consultant Service LLC was the named defendant.
What happened
In Donna L. Friedeberg v. US Share Info Consultant Service LLC, Donna L. Friedeberg alleged that a blood-pressure monitor was used in a scheme involving the Roman Catholic Church to coerce women. She also made claims about kidney dialysis and a doctor whom she said was involved in a church-related scheme.
Friedeberg asked the court to identify and close kidney-dialysis operations, award money, and seek criminal prosecution of caregivers. The court found that her complaint provided no plausible factual support and that its allegations were irrational.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. He also denied fee-free status for an appeal and warned that further meritless filings could lead to restrictions on her ability to file without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Friedeberg v. Share Info Consultant Service LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03999
- Louis Stanton
- June 25, 2025
Background
Donna L. Friedeberg proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP. Her complaint alleged that the defendant had created an electronic blood-pressure monitor capable of receiving radio signals and that Roman Catholic officials or psychiatrists used it to raise a woman's blood pressure as part of a coercive sexual plan. The complaint also asserted that medical treatment plans were used as punishment, that kidney dialysis in the United States was fraudulent, and that Dr. Deutsch participated in a church-related money-making scheme.
Friedeberg requested a nationwide survey of kidney-dialysis operations, closure of outpatient dialysis units, $1 million for each dialysis location, criminal prosecution of caregivers, and a $50 billion payment by the defendant to the Chinese government.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, 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 without lawyers generously, those complaints must still provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.
The court explained that a complaint is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. It found that Friedeberg offered no factual basis for her assertions about the blood-pressure monitor, the alleged church scheme, or the other claims. The court concluded that the allegations were irrational and conclusory and therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by adding allegations. It dismissed the action as frivolous and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. It also warned Friedeberg that continued meritless IFP filings could lead to an order requiring her to explain why she should not be barred from proceeding IFP in that court without prior permission.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.