Gordon v. Gordon

Background

Catherine Gordon proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. In her original complaint, she named 25 unrelated defendants and alleged that law enforcement had failed to protect her from crimes including stalking, theft of intellectual property, and the poisoning or drugging of makeup and hygiene products.

On May 27, 2025, the court dismissed the original complaint because it did not provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not allege facts showing how the defendants violated Gordon’s rights. The court allowed her to file an amended complaint. Gordon filed that amended complaint on June 26, 2025, naming 27 defendants. They included private individuals, the New York City Police Department’s 79th Precinct, CitiBank, TD Bank, Verizon, Bayside/Parkside Dental Care Partners, Mount Sinai Hospital, JC Salons, Jasco Realty, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Legal Zoom, the Brooklyn Family Court’s Clerk’s Office, and Cutting Room Floor Studios.

Gordon’s allegations

Gordon stated that her claims arose in New York City, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, New Jersey, between 2022 and 2024. She referred to alleged defamation, false information, stalking, surveillance, privacy-law violations, physical and mental harm, document forgery, tax fraud, identity theft, grand larceny, bribery, perjury, and destruction of evidence. She also alleged that a rental company ignored complaints, harassed her, altered documents, and disposed of receipts; that her credit-card information and Social Security information had been sold; that Kriselle Cedero impersonated her and spread false information; and that movie studios helped steal or alter her intellectual property, voice, and likeness. Gordon sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It held that the amended complaint, like the original complaint, did not comply with Rule 8. The allegations were conclusory and did not provide facts plausibly connecting the defendants to a viable federal claim. The court also noted that many defendants were not mentioned at all.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Gordon might have been asserting. The court denied further leave to amend because Gordon had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and the amended complaint did not suggest that another amendment could cure them.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It denied Gordon’s request for the court to request pro bono counsel as moot. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied her ability to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.