Brown v. Nash

Background

Nkosi Brown filed the action without a lawyer and attempted to assert claims for himself and Ann Alfred. Because Brown was the only person who signed the complaint, the court treated him as the sole plaintiff for purposes of the order. Brown sued Dwayne A. Nash, an attorney. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Nash implanted a neural link in Brown’s brain, harassed Brown for sex, stole money, interfered with Brown’s phones and emails, and caused a “brain constriction.” Brown sought Nash’s assets, bodega, office space, and apartment-related property.

The court had previously allowed Brown to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims.

Claims on behalf of Ann Alfred

The court dismissed, without prejudice, any claims Brown attempted to assert on Alfred’s behalf. Federal law generally allows a person to represent only himself or herself without a lawyer. Because Brown did not allege that he was an attorney, the court concluded that he could not represent Alfred in the action.

Requests for criminal prosecution

To the extent Brown sought criminal prosecution of Nash or anyone else, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that prosecutors, not private citizens or courts, decide whether to bring criminal charges.

State-law claims and diversity jurisdiction

The court understood Brown to be asserting state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court found that Brown’s allegations appeared to identify South Carolina citizenship for himself and New York citizenship for Nash, but Brown did not provide non-conclusory facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint alleged $10,000 connected to “Ovo Sound,” an unspecified amount involving Social Security benefits, and more than $300 in electronic benefit transfer points. The court therefore dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Remaining claims

The court dismissed the remaining claims as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute. A claim is factually frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. The court found that Brown provided no plausible factual support for his assertions that Nash implanted a neural link in his brain, said Brown could not earn too much because of his college grade point average, or caused a brain constriction. The court concluded that those allegations were irrational, conclusory, and frivolous.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court declined to grant Brown leave to amend because the complaint did not suggest that he possessed additional facts that could cure its defects. The court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to enter a civil judgment. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court also reminded Brown that an earlier order had barred him from filing future civil actions without first obtaining permission to file without prepaying fees in that court.