Serkez v. The Our Gov.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00869
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Serkez v. THE/OUR GOVERNMENT, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Joseph Serkez’s case was dismissed, and he was warned that future frivolous filings could lead to restrictions on filing without prepaying fees. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Joseph Serkez sued THE/OUR GOVERNMENT, claiming that the government had constantly violated his federal right to “freedom” in the United States and overseas. He listed subjects including circumcision, cremation, banning criminals from towns, clean-energy funding, agriculture, and cryogenetics.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of frivolous claims filed without prepaying fees. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and had no valid legal theory, even after reading the complaint generously because Serkez had no lawyer. The court also found that amendment would be futile.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and warned that continued frivolous lawsuits could lead to restrictions on future fee-free filings. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Serkez v. The Our Gov. · No. 1:20-cv-00869
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Joseph Serkez, representing himself, brought the action under federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Serkez alleged that the government had violated his federal right to “freedom” constantly, both domestically and overseas. His complaint included a list referring, among other things, to circumcision, cremation, spreading ashes, banning criminals from towns, funding for clean energy, agriculture, and cryogenetics.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of claim. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable factual or legal basis. Courts must read self-represented complaints generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Serkez’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them, even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed by people without lawyers. The court explained that an opportunity to amend is generally provided when a complaint has correctable defects, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant leave to amend.
Ruling and additional orders
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court warned that continued frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Serkez from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.