Latham v. The 1953 Trust

Background

Charlene Y. Latham filed a pro se complaint, meaning she represented herself, against The 1953 Trust and 34 other named defendants, as well as hundreds of unidentified defendants. The opinion identifies The 1953 Trust as the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The named defendants included the City of New York, individuals, and various companies and organizations.

Latham filed the complaint on her own behalf and purported to bring claims for her parents, David G. Latham and Tracey Y. Latham, and other children and grandchildren of her parents. Only Latham signed the complaint or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Latham alleged that the defendants created a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual assaults, financial exploitation, drugging, abduction, hostage-taking, harassment, extortion, torture, and retaliation. She also alleged that the defendants exploited the plaintiffs for theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, and interference with career and economic opportunities. She sought $500 million in damages and an order restraining the defendants from engaging in the alleged conduct.

Legal standard

Because Latham requested permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an application-based fee-waiver complaint, or part of it, if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a complaint when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court was required to read Latham’s pro se allegations liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggested. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or irrational or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Court’s analysis

As to Latham’s own claims, the court concluded that even when read liberally, the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

As to claims asserted for other people, the court explained that federal law generally permits a person to represent only himself or herself without a lawyer. The court stated that Latham did not appear to be an attorney and therefore could not assert claims on behalf of her parents or other relatives. The court also noted that the family members had not signed the complaint or submitted applications to proceed without prepaying fees, so it was unclear whether they intended to participate in the lawsuit.

Disposition

The court granted Latham leave to proceed without prepaying fees. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), declined to grant leave to amend, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Latham and note service on the docket. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.