No v. CIA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In No v. CIA, Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying fees.
Jeong-Suk No’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The CIA, FBI, and NSA were named as defendants, but the opinion does not describe any merits determination concerning them.
What happened
In Jeong-Suk No v. CIA/FBI/NSA, Jeong-Suk No sued the CIA, FBI, and NSA after receiving permission to proceed without paying court fees. He identified diversity jurisdiction but did not explain his claims or provide supporting facts.
The court found that the complaint was unclear and offered no legal theory supporting relief. It also described the action as part of No’s pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation and noted that he had previously been barred from filing future civil actions without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amendment, denied relief sought in No’s later submissions, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- No v. CIA · No. 1:19-cv-11405
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background
Jeong-Suk No brought the action without a lawyer against the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On the complaint form, No selected diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal jurisdiction, stated that he was a citizen of the Republic of Korea, wrote that he was applying for dual citizenship of the Republic of Korea and the United States, and provided a New York, New York address.
The complaint did not identify specific claims or provide facts supporting them. In the requested-relief section, No listed injury recovery, stopping violence, torture rehabilitation, remedies, restitution, compensation, personal-data protection, and life, liberty, and freedom, among other items. He also wrote that more details would be added with his lawyers.
Court’s Analysis
For a case filed without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must interpret a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and consider the strongest claims the allegations suggest. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court referred to No’s earlier cases, which it said had repeatedly been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. It stated that, on February 10, 2020, it had directed No to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional actions without first obtaining permission. The opinion further stated that, on February 25, 2019, the court barred No from filing future civil actions without first obtaining permission. The opinion says that No filed this action before the court directed him to show cause why he should not be barred.
Even after reading the complaint with the special consideration given to self-represented pleadings, the court found no apparent legal theory supporting it. The court characterized the action as continuing No’s pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation. Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, the court concluded that amendment would be futile and declined to grant leave to amend.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also denied any relief No may have sought in more than a dozen later submissions because the action was frivolous; the court noted that many of those submissions were labeled affidavits or evidence and were largely illegible. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending matters.
Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied No permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.