Epperson v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02176
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Epperson v. United States, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Chris Jonathan Epperson’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The court’s ruling did not reach the merits of the claims against the named defendants.
What happened
Epperson v. United States was brought by Chris Jonathan Epperson, who represented himself and identified himself as a California citizen. He sued the United States and several named individuals.
Epperson’s complaint listed several federal statutes and allegations including espionage, embezzlement, extortion threats, and pharmaceutical kickbacks. He requested $100 million in damages, but the complaint did not clearly explain a legally valid claim.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous after screening it, finding that the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. She denied permission to amend the complaint and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Epperson v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-02176
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
Chris Jonathan Epperson, appearing without a lawyer, sued the United States; Geoffrey S. Binney; Bill Clinton; Barac Obama; Donald Trumph; and Joe Biedon. The court had previously allowed Epperson to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint did not identify whether it was based on federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
Epperson listed “18 U.S.C. 30, 18 U.S.C. 31, 18 U.S.C. 41” as the federal statutes involved. He listed the place of occurrence as “50 U.S.C. 2271” and the date as “1951.” His factual allegations included “Encounter Espionage,” “Repeal 1948,” constitutional provisions, embezzlement, and extortion threats. He described his injuries as “Pharmaceutical kickbacks,” an “Unecessary [sic] Test,” and a “Kickback scheme.” He requested “Local Rule 83:19,” “Rule 11,” and “100 million damages.”
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.
Even after reading the complaint generously, as required for a self-represented litigant, the court concluded that Epperson’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous. It also concluded that the defects could not be corrected by amendment and declined to give Epperson permission to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court did not reach the merits of any underlying legal claim. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Epperson permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court also warned that further abuse of the fee-free filing privilege could lead to an order requiring Epperson to show cause why he should not be barred from filing new actions without prior permission.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.