Dugas v. State of New York
John Dugas v. State of New York; City of New York; Departments of Government; Department of Human and Health Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-08733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In John Dugas v. State of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the case because Dugas lacked standing and the civil claims were frivolous.
John Dugas’s action was dismissed; the defendants were not required to litigate the claims further in this case.
What happened
In John Dugas v. State of New York, John Dugas, representing himself, challenged the handling and use of real property at 400 East 30th Street in New York, New York. He sought $27 trillion to be placed in an account for the benefit of people in the United States, along with property and other relief. He also appeared to seek criminal prosecution of people he called wrongdoers.
The court said Dugas did not show that he personally suffered an injury caused by any defendant or that a court could remedy it. It therefore found that he lacked the legal basis to bring his civil claims. The court also said those claims were frivolous because they rested on a clearly meritless legal theory. Dugas could not use this civil case to force federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against others.
The court dismissed the action, declined to allow Dugas to amend his complaint, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. It also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Swain signed the order.
The detailed version
- Dugas v. State of New York · No. 1:24-cv-08733
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
John Dugas, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal-question action against the State of New York, the City of New York, the “Departments of Government,” and the “Department of Human and Health Services.” The complaint also appeared possibly to name the United States, several federal courts, unidentified third parties, unidentified individuals, and future defendants. The court had previously allowed Dugas to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Dugas’s allegations were difficult to understand but appeared to concern real property at 400 East 30th Street in New York, New York. He alleged that the property’s lot was not properly conveyed, did not exist according to government records, and was involved in various government, private, health, housing, and food-assistance activities. He sought $27 trillion to be placed in an account for the United States and distributed equally to citizens and residents, as well as real property, government funds, and other relief. He also requested criminal prosecution of alleged wrongdoers.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks legal authority to decide them. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, such complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
Criminal-prosecution requests
To the extent Dugas sought to have the federal government criminally prosecute anyone, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors, and neither a private citizen nor the court can direct prosecutors to begin a criminal case. Dugas therefore lacked standing—the required personal connection to the alleged injury—to seek that relief.
Civil claims
The court also dismissed Dugas’s civil claims for lack of standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show a real or threatened personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that the requested relief would remedy the injury. The court found that Dugas did not allege a legal interest in the property or facts showing that any defendant had caused him a personal injury, as opposed to a grievance shared by the public generally.
The court additionally dismissed the civil claims as frivolous under the filing-fee statute. It characterized Dugas’s objections to the conveyance and activities involving property in which he did not allege a legal interest as resting on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
Disposition
The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found no indication that additional facts could cure the identified defects. It dismissed the action and directed the clerk to enter a civil judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Dugas permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.