King v. Trump

Background

Gerry Alan King, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed an action seeking confirmation of a purported arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 9. He alleged that an arbitrator associated with the Sitcomm Arbitration Association had issued an award of nearly $6 billion in his favor against Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Grassley, John Roberts, Jr., and William Barr. The United States of America was also named as a defendant. King asserted that the court had diversity jurisdiction, but he did not provide facts about the defendants' domiciles.

The award document attached to the complaint contained statements about alleged unconstitutional prosecution, imprisonment, and government actions. It was signed by people who described themselves with various labels, including “Heir of the Creator” and “Real Man Living Soul.”

Legal standard

Because King had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also stated that filings by people without lawyers must be read generously and interpreted to present the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.

A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court explained that this includes factual allegations that are irrational or wholly incredible and claims based on a legally meritless theory.

Court’s analysis

The court considered the Sitcomm award legally frivolous. It discussed decisions from other courts that had questioned the validity of Sitcomm arbitration proceedings and described similar awards as lacking a factual or legal foundation. The court concluded that King's claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them, even when the complaint was read with the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers.

The court further concluded that the defects could not be corrected by amendment. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court stated that amendment is unnecessary when it would be futile.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to grant King leave to amend. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied King permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail King a copy of the order and record service on the docket.