Nazer v. United States of America
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-06836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nazer v. United States of America, Judge McMahon dismissed Nazer’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Izzat Nazer’s case ended at the court’s required screening stage. The United States and the federal agencies named as defendants were not required to proceed to litigation on these allegations. Nazer was also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Nazer v. United States of America, Izzat Nazer sued the United States and several federal agencies, claiming that government intelligence agents violated his constitutional rights. He represented himself and sought monetary damages.
Nazer alleged that the government persecuted him because of his national origin and perceived religious faith, racially profiled him, and deliberately tormented him. He requested $821 million in restitution damages and $5 billion in punitive damages.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous, finding that the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court declined to allow an amended complaint and denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Nazer v. United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-06836
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
Izzat Nazer, representing himself, sued the United States, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Nazer stated that his claims arose between 2009 and 2020 in several locations. His complaint alleged that government intelligence agents persecuted him because of his national origin and perceived religious faith, racially profiled him, abused government power, and deliberately caused psychological harm and torment. He requested $821 million in restitution damages and $5 billion in punitive damages.
Court’s analysis
Because Nazer was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss any part of the complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it had to dismiss a case if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court explained that it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. The court concluded that, even under that more generous reading, Nazer’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. It therefore treated the complaint as frivolous. The opinion also noted that Nazer had filed a similar earlier case, but the court’s dismissal here was based on the complaint before it.
Disposition
The court dismissed Nazer’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to give him permission to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Nazer permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The opinion did 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.