Torres v. New York Legal Assistance Group
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-06396
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Torres v. New York Legal Assistance Group, Judge Stanton dismissed Torres’s complaint as frivolous after screening it.
The dismissal ended Wilfredo Torres’s action against the New York Legal Assistance Group, Jill L. Rosenberg, Beth Goldman, and Robyn Tarnofsky. The court also denied Torres an opportunity to amend the complaint.
What happened
In Torres v. New York Legal Assistance Group, Wilfredo Torres sued the New York Legal Assistance Group and three of its employees. He alleged that they conspired with government entities and others to undermine an earlier lawsuit and violate his right to due process.
Torres represented himself and asked for $100 million in damages. The court reviewed his complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of certain complaints filed without paying filing fees, including complaints that are frivolous or fail to state a legal claim.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ruled that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. He dismissed the action as frivolous and declined to allow Torres to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Torres v. New York Legal Assistance Group · No. 1:20-cv-06396
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 24, 2020
Background
Wilfredo Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), Jill L. Rosenberg, Esq., Beth Goldman, Esq., and Robyn Tarnofsky, Esq. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sought $100 million in damages.
Torres alleged that he was improperly placed on a U.S. government terrorist list, persecuted, tortured, and denied due process. He also alleged that New York City police carried out warrantless raids of his apartment and that the U.S. Department of Justice took him to Bellevue Hospital to be tortured. He had filed an earlier case concerning some of those events.
Torres further alleged that NYLAG operated a court-connected legal clinic whose real purpose was to sabotage politically unpleasant cases and help the court dismiss them. He claimed that the clinic intentionally and maliciously conspired to cause the dismissal of his earlier case.
Screening standard
Because the court had allowed Torres to proceed without prepaying filing fees, it was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint, or part of one, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a legally supported claim plausible.
Ruling
The court held that, even when read liberally, Torres’s allegations were irrational and that there was no legal theory on which he could rely. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by an amended complaint. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Torres a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The opinion states that the action was dismissed, but does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.