Weidrick v. Trump
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Weidrick v. Trump, Judge McMahon dismissed Mary Jo Weidrick’s complaint as frivolous and denied her counsel request as moot.
Mary Jo Weidrick’s complaint was dismissed, her request for pro bono counsel was denied as moot, and her fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The order also warned her that future frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without prior permission.
What happened
In Weidrick v. Trump, Mary Jo Weidrick sued President Donald J. Trump, United States Attorney William P. Barr, and the United States Congress. She represented herself and sought an order stopping what she described as long-running terrorism and abuse.
The court found that her allegations were irrational and had no legal basis. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and did not allow her to amend it because amendment would be futile.
Judge Colleen McMahon also denied Weidrick’s request for pro bono counsel as moot, warned that future frivolous cases could lead to restrictions on filing without permission, and denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Weidrick v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-01057
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
Mary Jo Weidrick, appearing without a lawyer, sued President Donald J. Trump, United States Attorney William P. Barr, and the United States Congress. She invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Weidrick alleged that the defendants had terrorized and tortured her for more than 30 years using mind-reading equipment, media outlets, and other means. She also alleged that officials threatened to arrest her attorney, used national and local media to sexually assault and smear her, and recruited state officials to participate. She sought injunctive relief, including an order temporarily stopping the alleged conduct while the case was moved to state court.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a case filed without prepayment of fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. A frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s filing liberally, but it may deny leave to amend when correcting the defects would be futile.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Weidrick’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported her claims. It therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to give her permission to file an amended complaint.
Rulings and other directives
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court denied Weidrick’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel as moot. It warned that further frivolous litigation in that court could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without preapproval when seeking to proceed without prepaying fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
The opinion lists several other cases that it says Weidrick filed and that various courts dismissed, including cases dismissed as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, or for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.