Brown v. USA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. USA, Judge McMahon dismissed Brown’s complaint as frivolous after he alleged that remote monitoring had hacked his brain.
Nkosi Brown’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal. The court also warned that future frivolous or vexatious filings could lead to restrictions on his ability to file new actions without prepaying fees.
What happened
Brown v. USA involved a complaint by Nkosi Brown, who was representing himself, against the United States, Jonathan Hampton, and Dwayne Nash. Brown alleged that his brain had been hacked through remote neural monitoring.
The court reviewed the complaint under rules requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints, complaints that do not state a legal claim, and claims seeking money from immune defendants. It concluded that Brown’s allegations were irrational and had no valid legal theory.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile, meaning it could not fix the defects. Judge Colleen McMahon also denied Brown permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal and warned that future frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on new fee-free filings.
The detailed version
- Brown v. USA · No. 1:21-cv-01146
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Nkosi Brown, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He alleged that “my brain has been hacked by remote neural monitoring.” The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Legal standard
Because Brown was proceeding without a lawyer and had received permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), a court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. A complaint is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.
Court’s analysis
The court said that Brown’s claims remained irrational even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer. It also concluded that there was no legal theory on which Brown could rely. 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.
Ruling
The court dismissed Brown’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It also warned that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could result in an order barring Brown from filing new actions without prepayment of fees unless he first received permission. Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to mail the order to Brown and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.