Johnson v. New York State Insurance Fund
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11831
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. New York State Insurance Fund, Judge McMahon dismissed Robert W. Johnson’s complaint as frivolous after screening his fee-free filing.
Robert W. Johnson’s case was dismissed as frivolous, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order provided no relief to the defendants beyond dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Johnson v. New York State Insurance Fund, Robert W. Johnson sued multiple corporations, insurance companies, agencies, and individuals over alleged denied retroactive payments connected to two workers’ compensation claims from 2017 car accidents. He requested extremely large damages and ownership of the defendants’ property and businesses.
The court found that the claims were irrational and had no legal basis. It dismissed the action as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed and because of Johnson’s history of similar litigation.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. New York State Insurance Fund · No. 1:19-cv-11831
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
Robert W. Johnson brought the action without a lawyer against multiple corporations, insurance companies, individuals, and government entities, including the New York State Insurance Fund. He alleged that the defendants denied him retroactive payments for billings connected to two workers’ compensation claims arising from car accidents in early 2017.
Johnson sought $999 trillion in punitive damages, $999 billion for future pain and suffering, $999 million in sanctions for employee discrimination, and 100% ownership of the defendants’ corporations, bank accounts, assets, stocks, and properties.
Legal standard
Because Johnson had been allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court was required to read his filings liberally because he was representing himself, but that obligation did not prevent dismissal of claims lacking a legal or factual basis.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even when read generously, Johnson’s claims were irrational and rested on no legal theory. It also considered Johnson’s history of filing numerous cases related to the 2017 car accidents. The court cited earlier orders that had dismissed related actions as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, directed Johnson to address possible filing restrictions, or barred him from filing new pro se complaints without prior permission.
Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment would be futile here. In light of the incurable defects and Johnson’s litigation history, it declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Johnson a copy and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.