Avramham v. Doe

Background

Moshe Avramham, also known as Marvin Arnold Pollack, filed the action without a lawyer while residing at the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center. The court granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but only for purposes of deciding this order.

The handwritten complaint was largely illegible and, to the extent it could be read, did not provide coherent information. It did not identify a defendant; the clerk listed “John/Jane Doe” on the docket because a defendant was required to open the civil action. A page labeled “Affidavit in Support” appeared to indicate that Avramham was trying to bring claims for several other people. He also attached psychiatric records concerning another individual’s involuntary hospitalization at Mid-Hudson. The court requested that access to the complaint be limited to case participants because it contained sensitive medical information about a non-party.

Legal standard

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying the filing fee if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a legally immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, but those filings still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court concluded that the complaint was frivolous because it failed to meet even minimal pleading requirements. Its illegibility made it unclear whom Avramham was suing, and it appeared that he was again trying to assert claims for other individuals. The court could not discern facts showing that Avramham was entitled to legal relief. The court also noted that a person who is not an attorney may represent only himself in a case and may not litigate another person’s claims.

Although courts generally give a person without a lawyer an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile here. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Warning and administrative directions

Because of Avramham’s litigation history, the court warned that additional illegible and frivolous actions could result in restrictions on his ability to file new civil actions in that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The clerk was directed to mail Avramham a copy of the order and note service on the docket.