Johnson v. Cyrus Vance Jr.

Background

Desiree Johnson filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She named former Attorney General William Pelham Barr and former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. as defendants. Johnson alleged that events connected to her claims occurred in New York City in October 2021.

The complaint referred to Johnson’s asserted membership in a class-action lawsuit and stated that attorneys involved in that case had refused to help her. She asked the court to obtain an attorney’s tax-identification information so she could retrieve records from the Treasury Department. Johnson stated that she had no injuries. The court also noted that Johnson had filed an earlier related action against Barr that Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed as frivolous.

Legal standard

Because Johnson was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law, including when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or its legal theory has no merit. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Johnson’s complaint lacked any arguable basis in fact or law. It held that her request for the court to track down information related to a class-action lawsuit did not provide a basis for a legal action. The court therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment here could not fix the complaint. It therefore concluded that permission to amend was not required.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the fee-waiver screening statute. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also denied Johnson’s motion at ECF 9 as frivolous and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion.

The court warned Johnson that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless she first received permission from the court. The court directed the Clerk to enter a civil judgment.