Utah v. Barnes and Noble
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Paul Utah v. Barnes and Noble, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Paul Utah's complaint was dismissed, he was not allowed to amend it, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. Barnes and Noble and All Hospitals were the named defendants. The court also warned Utah that future frivolous or abusive filings could lead to limits on fee-free civil actions.
What happened
In Paul Utah v. Barnes and Noble, Paul Utah, who was proceeding without a lawyer, described alleged humiliation, investigations, targeting, profiling, rumors, mental anguish, and problems involving hospitals and mental-health workers in Pennsylvania and New York.
The court said the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It also found that amending the complaint would be futile, so it did not give Utah permission to amend it.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, warned that future frivolous or abusive lawsuits could lead to limits on fee-free filings, and denied fee-free status for an appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Utah v. Barnes and Noble · No. 1:19-cv-10734
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
Paul Utah sued Barnes and Noble and All Hospitals over events he said occurred between 2012 and 2019 in Pennsylvania and New York. He proceeded without a lawyer and had previously received permission to file without paying court fees. Utah alleged humiliation, illegal investigations, targeting by people and law enforcement, effects on his dating life, sex life, and friendships, mental anguish, rumors, civil-rights and human-rights violations, false claims, racial profiling, and improper use of hospitals and mental-health workers. The opinion also notes that Utah filed several other actions around the same time against different defendants with similar allegations.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact. The court must also dismiss when it lacks authority to hear the case. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, that does not prevent dismissal of allegations that are irrational or unsupported by any legal theory.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even when read generously, Utah’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. Courts generally allow a person without a lawyer to amend a defective complaint, but they need not do so when an amendment would be futile. The court found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
Ruling
The court declined to grant Utah permission to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Judge Colleen McMahon also warned that further frivolous or abusive litigation could result in an order barring Utah from filing new civil actions without paying fees unless he first received permission. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.