Kraft v. The City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-10286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kraft v. The City of New York, Judge Furman dismissed Kraft’s complaint as frivolous and denied his request for injunctive relief as moot.
Warren R. Kraft’s lawsuit was dismissed, affecting his claims against The City of New York and the other defendants; the court also warned Kraft about possible future filing restrictions.
What happened
Warren R. Kraft, representing himself, sued The City of New York and other defendants. He alleged that federal and New York City law-enforcement personnel and others subjected him to surveillance, harassment, threats, and violence. His complaint contained 20 causes of action and sought damages, declarations, and court orders requiring defendants to act or stop acting.
The court concluded that Kraft’s allegations were irrational and that his claims had no legally valid basis, even when his filing was read generously because he had no lawyer. The court also concluded that amendment could not fix the complaint, so it did not give him permission to file an amended complaint.
In Kraft v. The City of New York, Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the action as frivolous under federal law and denied Kraft’s request for injunctive relief as moot. The court warned that future frivolous or vexatious filings could lead to a requirement that Kraft obtain permission before filing new actions, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kraft v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10286
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Warren R. Kraft filed the action without a lawyer, although he paid the filing fee. He sued The City of New York and other defendants, asserting 20 causes of action in an 84-page, 540-paragraph complaint. He sought money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
Kraft alleged that, since 2014, he had been subjected to covert surveillance and overt harassment, including threats and violence. He attributed the alleged conduct to unknown federal law-enforcement officers, confidential informants, undercover officers, and unidentified New York City police officers. He further alleged that the conduct was ongoing, abusive, nationwide, and connected to surveillance and harassment tactics.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous even when the filing fee has been paid. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court also recognized that filings by people without lawyers must be read generously and interpreted to raise the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.
Even under that standard, the court found that Kraft’s claims were irrational and that he had no legally valid theory supporting them. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court determined that the defects could not be corrected by amendment and declined to give Kraft leave to amend.
The court also described an earlier related proceeding in which Kraft filed a substantially similar complaint. That action was first dismissed for failure to state a claim with permission to replead; the amended complaint was later dismissed as frivolous. The court warned that additional vexatious, frivolous, or nonmeritorious litigation could result in an order barring Kraft from filing new actions unless he first obtained permission.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that Kraft’s complaint be dismissed as frivolous. Kraft’s request for injunctive relief was denied as moot. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action and to record service and the opinion as specified in the order.
Effect of the Order
The opinion states that the action was dismissed as frivolous and that leave to amend was denied. It does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.” The warning about possible future filing restrictions was conditional; the order did not itself impose a filing bar.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.