Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 5, 2020

Johnson v. Progressive.Com

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11202
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Johnson v. Progressive.com: Judge McMahon dismissed Robert W. Johnson’s fact-free complaint as frivolous and denied his appeal fee waiver.

Who this affects

Robert W. Johnson’s claims against the named insurance companies and other entities were dismissed. The court also denied him permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.

What happened

In Johnson v. Progressive.com, Robert W. Johnson, representing himself, sued multiple insurance companies and other entities. He sought extremely large amounts of money and ownership of corporate assets, but his complaint alleged no facts.

The court said the claims were irrational and had no legal basis. It also found that the defects could not be fixed by changing the complaint, so it declined to let Johnson amend it.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying Johnson permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Progressive.Com · No. 1:19-cv-11202
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 5, 2020

Background

Robert W. Johnson filed the complaint without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He sued multiple insurance companies and other entities, including Progressive.com, Axxcess Insurance Agencies Ltd., New York Automobile Insurance Plan, Global Liberty Insurance Company, Arizona Premium Finance, Chevrolet, ADESA, Nationwide, Victoria Fire & Casualty Company, Allstate, Geico, and AAA.

Johnson sought “$999 trillion” in punitive damages, “$999 billion for future pain and suffering,” and “100% ownership of corporation assets, bank accounts & equities.” The court stated that the complaint contained no facts.

Court’s analysis

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally and considered the strongest claims they might suggest. Even under that standard, however, the court concluded that the claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore treated the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. It concluded that the defects here could not be cured by amendment and also considered Johnson’s history of filing what the court described as vexatious and frivolous litigation. The court noted prior warnings and filing restrictions involving Johnson, but the order did not impose a new filing injunction in this case.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the clerk to mail the order to Johnson and note service on the docket. The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 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 paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.