Utah v. New York State Police
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Paul Utah v. State Police of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed Paul Utah’s complaint as frivolous after screening it.
Paul Utah’s action was dismissed at the court’s required screening stage. The defendants were State Police of New York, Long Island Law Enforcement, NYPD, and Albany Law Enforcement. The order also affected Paul Utah’s ability to file future fee-waived actions and to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Paul Utah v. State Police of New York concerned allegations that banks, schools, law-enforcement agencies, and others tracked, harassed, manipulated, and threatened Paul Utah. He filed the case without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of certain fee-waived cases. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported the claims. The court also found that amending the complaint would be futile.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and denied permission to amend. She warned that future vexatious or frivolous cases could lead to restrictions on filing without prepaying fees, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-waived status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Utah v. New York State Police · No. 1:19-cv-10774
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
Paul Utah filed a complaint and an amended complaint on the same day. He proceeded without a lawyer and had received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that banks and school staff manipulated him; that people used tracking, computer, cellphone, military, police, fire-department, and emergency-medical technology against him; and that others harassed, intimidated, surveilled, and tampered with his employment and personal life. The opinion states that he alleged the events occurred throughout New York State during the previous seven years.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for cases filed without prepaying fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. It said that a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact, including when the factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or when the legal theory is indisputably meritless.
Even after giving the complaint the liberal interpretation required for filings by people without lawyers, the court concluded that Paul Utah’s claims were irrational and had no supporting legal theory. The court stated that an opportunity to amend is unnecessary when amendment would be futile and determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to grant leave to amend. It warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Paul Utah from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he obtained prior permission. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.