Brown v. ConEd Security
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02188
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. ConEd Security, Judge McMahon dismissed Nkosi S. Brown’s complaint as frivolous and denied her fee waiver for an appeal.
Nkosi S. Brown’s case was dismissed at the court’s required screening stage. The order also warned Brown about a possible future filing restriction and denied her permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. ConEd Security was the defendant named in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Brown v. ConEd Security, Nkosi S. Brown, representing herself, alleged that her brain had been hacked and asked the court to require ConEd Security to temporarily shut down the power grid so the signal would stop.
The court found that these allegations were irrational and had no legal basis. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow Brown to amend it because an amendment would not fix the defects.
Judge Colleen McMahon also warned that further frivolous cases could lead to a filing restriction requiring Brown to obtain permission before filing new cases without paying fees. The court denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brown v. ConEd Security · No. 1:21-cv-02188
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Nkosi S. Brown, appearing without a lawyer, sued ConEd Security. She alleged that her brain had been hacked and stated that ConEd Security needed to black out the city for five minutes so that the signal would drop. She asked the court to require ConEd to temporarily turn off the power grid.
The court had previously granted Brown permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because she was proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to read her allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims they suggested.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the court must dismiss a case that is frivolous, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable factual or legal basis, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.
The court concluded that Brown’s allegations were irrational and that there was no legal theory supporting her claims. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile here.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to grant leave to amend. It warned Brown that further frivolous litigation in the court could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without paying fees unless she first received permission. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Brown a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.