Pacheco v. United States of America
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-08550
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pacheco v. United States, Judge Stanton dismissed Rodolfo Pacheco’s complaint as frivolous after screening his allegations under federal law.
Rodolfo Pacheco’s federal complaint was dismissed at the required screening stage; the listed defendants were not required to litigate the allegations on the merits in this order.
What happened
In Pacheco v. United States of America, Rodolfo Pacheco, representing himself, sued the United States and other defendants, alleging widespread surveillance, mind-control technology, physical injuries, stalking, torture, and violations of his constitutional rights. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court reviewed the complaint under a law requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, legally baseless, or seek relief from an immune defendant. It concluded that Pacheco’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported his claims. The court also found that changing the complaint would not fix its defects.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow Pacheco to amend it. The clerk was directed to mail Pacheco a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Pacheco v. United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-08550
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Rodolfo Pacheco, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States; George; Universal Security; Maria, C.B.S.; Maria, ProGuard Protection, Inc.; and Jimmy, My Guard Security. He invoked the court’s authority to hear federal-law claims and alleged that defendants violated all of his constitutional rights.
Pacheco alleged that he had been subjected to mass surveillance and to United States-sponsored mind-control technologies. He stated that these events had occurred “everywhere” and “any where” for six years. He also alleged damage to his organs, skin, brain, and other vital organs; lack of privacy; impersonation of himself and his family; stalking; physical harm; torture; and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law. He sought relief for what he described as tort-law violations and other alleged injuries.
The court had previously granted Pacheco’s request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to read his allegations generously and consider the strongest claims they reasonably suggested.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. A claim is frivolous when it has no reasonable basis in law or fact. The court cited decisions explaining that allegations may be factually frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, or legally frivolous when they rely on a clearly meritless legal theory.
Court’s analysis
The court held that, even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer, Pacheco’s claims were irrational and lacked a legal theory on which he could rely.
Courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint. But the court explained that amendment is not required when it would be futile, meaning that changing the allegations could not cure the defects. The court concluded that Pacheco’s defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed Pacheco’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and declined to grant leave to amend. The clerk was directed to mail Pacheco a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.