No v. Republic of Korea

Background

Jeong-Suk No filed the action without a lawyer against the Republic of Korea. He requested permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, and the court granted that request.

The complaint was handwritten and largely illegible. As described by the court, No alleged physical injuries in Seoul and New York City, stalking by various groups, a need for urgent protection and a visa extension, medical insurance needs, privacy concerns, and physical and virtual surveillance. The complaint also appeared to refer to “mail control & iphone virus,” fraud or hypnosis, abuse and surveillance by the United States government, a “food control & torture program,” and a bloody nose.

Legal standard

Under the statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. A claim is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless, including allegations that are irrational or based on fantasy, or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims the pleading suggests.

Court’s analysis and rulings

Judge Colleen McMahon concluded that the complaint lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. She found that the factual allegations were irrational and that No had no legal theory on which he could rely. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and the conclusion also states that the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court discussed the general rule that a self-represented plaintiff ordinarily should receive an opportunity to amend when a liberal reading of the complaint suggests that a valid claim might be stated. But it explained that amendment is not required when the substance of the claim is frivolous on its face or amendment would be futile. Based on its conclusion that No’s allegations were frivolous, the court dismissed the complaint without granting leave to amend.

The court also referred to No’s earlier related filings, several of which had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. It ordered No to show cause by written declaration within 14 days why he should not be barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees in this court unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The order required notice and an opportunity to respond; it did not itself impose that filing restriction at that point.

Finally, the court directed the Clerk to mail the order to No and note service on the docket. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.