Cohen v. N.Y.P.D.-HQ Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Division
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cohen v. NYPD-HQ Counterterrorism and Intelligence Division, Judge McMahon dismissed Cohen’s amended complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Peggy Cohen’s amended complaint was dismissed. The named defendants were NYPD-HQ Counterterrorism and Intelligence Division and John Doe.
What happened
In Cohen v. NYPD-HQ Counterterrorism and Intelligence Division, Peggy Cohen, who was representing herself, alleged identity theft, credit-card problems, stalking, break-ins, surveillance, electronic torture, and attacks using remote weapons. She sought $10 million and an order stopping the alleged weapon use. She named the police division and John Doe as defendants.
The court said that, even reading the complaint generously, Cohen’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court concluded that allowing another amendment would be futile, meaning it would not fix the problems in the complaint.
Judge McMahon dismissed the amended complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without paying court fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cohen permission to appeal without paying those fees.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. N.Y.P.D.-HQ Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Division · No. 1:19-cv-09984
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Peggy Cohen filed the action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The defendants were identified as NYPD-HQ Counterterrorism and Intelligence Division and John Doe. In an earlier order, the court directed Cohen to amend her original complaint because it contained deficiencies. The court also noted that many allegations appeared irrational and resembled allegations in a prior related proceeding. The court nevertheless allowed an amended complaint because it appeared Cohen might be trying to assert excessive-force claims against police officers who were not named as defendants.
Cohen’s amended complaint described alleged identity theft involving a wallet, unexplained credit-card charges, stalking, hacked computers, break-ins, surveillance, drones, tracking, physical injuries, toxic chemicals, and remote weapons. She also submitted letters describing alleged electronic torture and illegal monitoring and surveillance. She requested $10 million in damages and an order stopping the alleged use of high-technology remote weapons against her and her family.
Court’s analysis
Because Cohen filed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s pleading generously and consider the strongest claims the allegations suggested.
The court concluded that Cohen’s claims were irrational even under that generous reading and that there was no legal theory on which she could rely. Although self-represented plaintiffs are generally given at least one opportunity to amend when a valid claim might be stated, the court explained that further amendment is not required when the claim is plainly frivolous or amendment would be futile. The court found that further amendment here would be futile.
Disposition
The court dismissed Cohen’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to grant further leave to amend. 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 appeal without paying the filing fees. The opinion’s conclusion contains an apparent typographical error in the citation to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.