Utah v. New York Police Department
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Utah v. New York Police Department, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Paul Utah’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Paul Utah’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The New York Police Department and the other defendants were affected because the action against them ended. The order also warned Utah that future fee-free filings could be restricted.
What happened
Paul Utah sued the New York Police Department and others, alleging human-rights and civil-rights violations. The case was Utah v. New York Police Department, filed in the Southern District of New York.
Utah described alleged interference by banks and school staff, harassment, intimidation, burglary assistance, illegal recordings, and other events. He sought $40 million and an injunction, and he represented himself without a lawyer.
The court dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also repeated a warning that further misuse of fee-free filing could lead to restrictions.
The detailed version
- Utah v. New York Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-10778
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
Paul Utah, appearing without a lawyer, brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged “human rights violations” and “civil rights violations” based on events he said occurred between January 1, 2012, and November 18, 2019. The complaint referred to alleged conduct involving TD Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Ashford University school staff and grades, a “Stingray,” Greyhound, people around him, harassment, intimidation, burglary assistance, hotel and hostel expenses, and recordings in taxis. Utah sought $40 million in damages and an injunction.
The court had previously allowed Utah to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, the court stated that it had to read his allegations generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the complaint.
Screening analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the court must dismiss a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court concluded that, even when read generously, Utah’s allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore found the complaint frivolous.
The court also held that amendment would be futile, meaning that changing the complaint would not cure its defects. It declined to give Utah permission to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed Utah’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court also repeated an earlier warning that, after Utah’s seven filings within three days, further misuse of the fee-free filing privilege could lead to an order requiring him to obtain prior permission before filing new civil actions without prepaying fees. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk to assign the matter to her docket, mail the order to Utah, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.