Hernandez v. Bryant
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hernandez v. Bryant, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Jaime Martinez Hernandez’s complaint as frivolous after he alleged neighbors used atomic radiation weapons against him.
Jaime Martinez Hernandez’s case was dismissed; the order also affected defendants Robert Bryant, Juan O. Pelham, and Derrick Morris by ending the claims against them.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Bryant, Jaime Martinez Hernandez, who was representing himself, sued two neighbors and his building superintendent, alleging they were violating his civil rights through witchcraft and atomic radiation weapons. He said these weapons had terrorized and tortured him and caused his hair and teeth to fall out.
The court screened the complaint and found that these allegations were irrational and had no legal basis. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous, meaning it lacked a reasonable factual or legal foundation, and found that amending the complaint would be futile. The court therefore did not give Hernandez permission to amend it.
Chief Judge McMahon directed the Clerk to mail Hernandez the order and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Bryant · No. 1:21-cv-01756
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
Jaime Martinez Hernandez, a Brooklyn resident proceeding without a lawyer, sued Robert Bryant, Juan O. Pelham, and Derrick Morris. The opinion describes Bryant and Pelham as neighbors in Hernandez’s apartment building and Morris as the building superintendent. Hernandez invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants were “witchcrafting terrorist[s]” who violated his civil rights. He also alleged that he had been tortured and terrorized with “atomic radioactivity weapons” in Brooklyn and Manhattan, causing his hair and teeth to fall out. The complaint did not request any specific relief.
The court had previously allowed Hernandez to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then reviewed the complaint under the statutes requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations. Even under that standard, however, the court found that Hernandez’s claims about atomic radiation being used against him were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore determined that the claims were frivolous—that is, lacking an arguable basis in fact or law.
The court also considered whether Hernandez should be allowed to amend his complaint. It concluded that the defects could not be fixed through amendment and declined to grant permission to amend. The court noted that Hernandez had previously brought substantially similar claims in an earlier round of the case, which had also been dismissed as frivolous. The court had warned that additional duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing future fee-free actions.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Hernandez and record service on the docket. The court dismissed Hernandez’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), declined to grant leave to amend, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.