People 1 v. Media
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In People #1 v. Media, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se plaintiffs’ action as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
The self-represented plaintiffs’ action was dismissed as frivolous, and they were denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In People #1 v. Media, the plaintiffs, representing themselves, sued Media and John/Jane Does 1-9. They claimed federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged racial discrimination in making a contract under a federal law protecting contract rights from racial discrimination.
The complaint referred to a USA TODAY “subway violinist,” an event in Atlanta around 2012, and claims that a person publicized a trademark as though it were a person. The court found the allegations irrational and found no legal theory supporting the claims. It also decided that changing the complaint could not fix the problems.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- People 1 v. Media · No. 1:20-cv-00257
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs identified themselves as “People #1 d/b/a Juana Doe Numera Una” and “John/Jane Does 1-9” and proceeded without lawyers. They sued “Media” and “John/Jane Does 1-9,” invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They indicated that “People #1” was a member of a minority race and that intentional discrimination occurred in the making of a contract.
The complaint used only the first page of the court’s general complaint form. Its allegations referred to USA TODAY’s “subway violinist,” an event in Atlanta around 2012, and assertions that Devin Fehly failed to fact-check and publicized a trademark as if it were a person, allegedly causing harm and confusion with assistance from Rudes/Apollo Global.
Screening standard
Because the plaintiffs had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, that does not save allegations that lack an arguable factual or legal basis.
Court’s analysis
The court held that, even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented pleadings, the plaintiffs’ claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore found the action frivolous. It concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to give the plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs status allowing them to appeal without prepaying fees. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.