Gilot v. Act Blue
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gilot v. Act Blue, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Farrah Gilot’s complaint was dismissed, and she was not allowed to appeal without prepaying fees. Act Blue was the defendant in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Gilot v. Act Blue, Farrah Gilot sued Act Blue over money she said was taken from her account for political campaigns. She also described alleged harassment involving people connected to a political candidate and said Act Blue caused her anxiety and depression.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of frivolous claims and claims that do not establish a legal basis for relief. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported the claims. The court also found that the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that venue was improper.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal and warned that future fee-free cases with the same defects could require advance permission.
The detailed version
- Gilot v. Act Blue · No. 1:19-cv-11256
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
Farrah Gilot, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action against Act Blue based on federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The opinion identifies Act Blue as a Massachusetts company and states that Gilot was a resident of Brooklyn, New York. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Gilot alleged that Act Blue was notified about a transaction involving a presidential campaign and that she told Act Blue not to withdraw funds from her account again. She alleged that Act Blue initially agreed to refund the money but later refused. Her allegations also referred to harassment by people connected to Julian Castro and his family, complaints to government representatives, and emotional distress. She sought $115 that she said had been taken from her account, referring to the Tulsi Gabbard campaign.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirements for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Those requirements require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a legally immune defendant. A frivolous claim, as the court explained, lacks an arguable factual or legal basis.
Even reading the complaint liberally, as required for a person representing herself, the court concluded that Gilot’s claims were irrational and had no supporting legal theory. The court also concluded that the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. The court further stated that venue was not proper in the district.
The court noted Gilot’s history of several earlier cases in federal courts that had been dismissed or transferred for pleading, jurisdiction, or venue problems. It found that she knew or should have known about these legal requirements. The court declined to permit amendment because it concluded that the defects could not be corrected. The opinion warned that continued filing of cases with the same defects could lead to restrictions on filing future cases without prepaying fees, including a requirement to obtain permission first.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Gilot’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The order did not grant leave to amend. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.