Lloyd v. Mauskopf

Background

Annis Ricardo Lloyd, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a federal-question action alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The defendants were Roslyn R. Mauskopf and Raymond J. Dearie, identified as judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; William Petrucci, identified as superintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility; and an unidentified FBI Agent-in-Charge.

Lloyd’s complaint concerned events occurring from 2017 through 2019 and described additional events as ongoing. It alleged that Judge Dearie sentenced Lloyd to 24 months in prison for a parole violation and that Lloyd served that sentence at Otisville. Lloyd alleged that Judge Mauskopf ordered that he be harassed, that he and his family were placed in jeopardy, and that he was subjected to electrocution and other acts. He also alleged that $1 trillion in cash and checks was mailed to him on pallets and stolen, and that bodies, a baby’s remains, and mannequins wired for shocking people were located in a housing unit at Otisville.

Lloyd sought $250 billion, recovery of his money, an investigation, criminal charges against the defendants, and “the right to eliminate the defendant(s).”

Screening standard

Because Lloyd was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Those provisions require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court stated that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the pleading.

The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. It further stated that allegations may be factually frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and that a claim may be legally frivolous when it rests on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Ruling

The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented pleadings, Lloyd’s claims were irrational and had no supporting legal theory. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile here.

Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Lloyd a copy and record service on the docket.

Additional warning

The order stated that Lloyd could not file a new action without prepaying fees while incarcerated because of prior frivolous filings. It also warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in that court could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prepayment of fees and without prior permission, regardless of his custody status.