Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08940
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office, Judge McMahon dismissed the frivolous lawsuit and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Eugene Moore’s § 1983 lawsuit against the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Manhattan Legal Aid Society was dismissed as frivolous; he was not allowed to amend, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Eugene Moore, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Manhattan Legal Aid Society under a civil-rights law. He sought $11.7 million, claiming that his criminal case was actually an improper commercial or civil arrangement.
The court said the complaint’s legal theories were irrational and had no legal basis. It dismissed the action as frivolous under the prisoner-screening statute and declined to allow Moore to amend because the defects could not be fixed.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moore permission to appeal without paying fees. The court directed the clerk to mail him the order.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office · No. 1:19-cv-08940
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Eugene Moore, who was incarcerated at Midstate Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Office of the District Attorney of New York County and the “Manhattan Legal Aid Society.” The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Moore sought $11,700,000 in damages.
The complaint used numerous legal terms and cited sources including the Uniform Commercial Code and Black’s Law Dictionary. Moore alleged, among other things, that his criminal case was actually an equitable civil action involving specific performance; that his indictment was a negotiable instrument; and that the grand-jury foreperson’s endorsement transferred property to the state. He also alleged that he had not agreed to a contractual arrangement involving pledged property and that trying him under that theory violated the Eighth Amendment.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirements. Those requirements require dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks damages from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls within the statute’s dismissal grounds. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or its legal theory is indisputably meritless.
Even giving special consideration to Moore’s self-represented status, the court concluded that his allegations were irrational and that he had no legal theory supporting the action. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Amendment and Disposition
Courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Judge Colleen McMahon concluded that the defects in Moore’s complaint could not be cured by amendment and declined to grant leave to amend.
The court directed the clerk to mail Moore 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 permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.