Utah v. Shoprite Coperation

Background

Paul Utah, who appeared without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against Shoprite Corporation under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The opinion says that Utah is a Queens resident and that the alleged events occurred between January 1, 2016, and November 20, 2019. He sought $10 million in damages and an injunction.

In his second amended complaint, Utah alleged targeting by private security and law enforcement, illegal video recording and monitoring, aggravated harassment, racial profiling, profiling based on being poor and stupid, invasion of privacy in bathrooms, and intimidation by employees, friends, citizens, hospital staff, and gym members. The quoted allegations also referred to several people, places, and organizations, but the opinion does not explain their roles in the case.

Court’s analysis

Because Utah had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Those statutes require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also said it had to read a self-represented party’s allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by them.

The court concluded that, even under that liberal reading, Utah’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore characterized the action as frivolous. The court explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but found that amendment here would be futile and declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Utah and record service on the docket. All other pending matters were terminated. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Utah permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

The court reiterated an earlier warning that, if Utah continued abusing the privilege of proceeding without paying fees in that court, he could be ordered to explain why he should not be barred from filing new civil actions without paying fees unless he first received permission.