Gordon v. Order of the Rainbow

Background

Ava Gordon filed the action without a lawyer. The court granted her request to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Gordon alleged that, in June 1978, another student molested her while they were both attending a school in the Bronx. She also described the other student’s parents and alleged that, since the incident, she had been harassed by numerous people and groups.

Gordon further alleged that the United States government and others were trying to discredit her to cover up the alleged school misconduct. She accused several named individuals of harassing her and alleged that the Prince Hall Freemasons and the Order of the Eastern Star had stalked and tortured her. The complaint also listed many additional alleged acts of harassment by defendants and people who were not named as defendants.

The opinion states that Gordon had filed other actions in this court involving similar allegations, and that five of those actions had been dismissed as frivolous. The court referred to those matters as prior related proceedings without treating them as part of the merits of this action.

Court’s Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. A claim is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The court must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, but it is not required to consider pure speculation or conjecture.

The court found that Gordon’s complaint had no arguable basis in fact or law. It characterized the factual allegations as irrational and found no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Although courts often allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend, the court concluded that amendment would be futile and did not provide leave to amend.

Order to Show Cause

Because of Gordon’s prior litigation history, the court ordered her to show cause—meaning to explain why a proposed restriction should not be entered—within 30 days of the order. She was directed to submit a declaration explaining why she should not be barred from filing any further actions in this court without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission from the court.

The order states that if Gordon failed to submit the declaration on time, or if it did not provide good cause, she would be barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The court directed the Clerk of Court to keep the matter open on the docket while this response was pending. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.