Lynch v. Francis
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lynch v. Francis, Judge McMahon dismissed Damien Lynch’s pro se complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Damien Lynch’s action against Pope Francis doing business as Franciscus, Mayor Bill De Blasio, and the City of New York was dismissed; Lynch was also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Lynch v. Francis was brought by Damien Lynch against Pope Francis doing business as Franciscus, Mayor Bill De Blasio, and the City of New York. Lynch proceeded without paying filing fees and alleged that the defendants conspired against him in New York City on August 31, 2019.
The complaint was 37 pages long but did not explain the context of Lynch’s allegations. It referred to several legal concepts, including breach of duty, emotional distress, federal criminal statutes, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It also mentioned a case in New York State Supreme Court without explaining its relevance.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, finding that the claims were irrational and had no legal basis. She did not allow Lynch to amend the complaint because she found that its problems could not be fixed. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lynch v. Francis · No. 1:19-cv-11404
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Damien Lynch, representing himself, filed a 37-page complaint against Pope Francis doing business as Franciscus, Mayor Bill De Blasio, and the City of New York. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Lynch alleged that the defendants conspired against him in New York City on August 31, 2019. The complaint referred to “res ipsa loquiter,” quantum meriut, breach of duty, emotional distress, federal criminal statutes, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It also mentioned a matter pending in New York State Supreme Court, but the opinion states that the complaint did not make clear how that matter related to this action.
Screening standard
The court explained that, when a person proceeds without prepaying fees, federal law requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also must read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court cited precedent explaining that factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and that a legal theory may be frivolous when it is indisputably meritless.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon concluded that, even when read liberally, Lynch’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to amend defective complaints, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Lynch a copy of the order and note service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.