Razzoli v. Black Lives Matter & Members

Background

Kevin Razzoli filed the case without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He alleged that the defendants—including Black Lives Matter and its members, Antifa and its members, Barack Obama, and known and unknown financiers—had discriminated against white people and damaged Roman Catholic and other Christian churches. He also alleged that an unknown Black Lives Matter member assaulted him at a Staten Island deli in August 2018 while Razzoli was trying to stop shoplifting.

Razzoli invoked constitutional provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. He sought $40 billion for alleged business losses and $25 billion for alleged physical injuries. After filing the complaint, he submitted eleven requests for discovery, including proposed depositions, admissions, and interrogatories.

Legal standards

Because Razzoli was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court had to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to read his filings generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing that he was entitled to relief.

Federal civil-rights claims

The court treated Razzoli’s constitutional allegations as claims under § 1983. Such a claim generally requires facts showing that each defendant acted under state authority. The court concluded that the defendants identified by Razzoli—including the unknown person who allegedly assaulted him—were private parties and did not work for a state or other government body. The court therefore concluded that Razzoli had not stated a § 1983 claim.

Civil RICO claims

The court concluded that Razzoli supplied no facts supporting either a civil RICO claim or a RICO-conspiracy claim. His allegations did not adequately identify the required enterprise, pattern of qualifying criminal acts, agreement, or business or property injury caused by a RICO violation. The court dismissed the civil RICO claims for failure to state a claim.

Claims under criminal statutes

Razzoli also relied on 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, which impose criminal liability for certain civil-rights violations. The court explained that a private person cannot use a civil lawsuit to initiate or direct a criminal prosecution. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

State-law assault claim and venue

The court considered whether Razzoli might be asserting a state-law assault claim based on the alleged Staten Island incident. It stated that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue because Razzoli did not allege that the defendants resided there or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court noted that Staten Island is in the Eastern District of New York, but declined to transfer the claim because it did not appear that the parties were citizens of different states and therefore diversity jurisdiction was unlikely. The court dismissed any such state-law assault claim against the unknown Black Lives Matter member without prejudice.

Discovery and amendment

The court denied Razzoli’s requests to compel discovery as moot because the complaint was being dismissed. It also denied leave to amend, finding that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed Razzoli’s claims under § 1983, the civil RICO statute, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 for failure to state a claim. It dismissed any state-law assault claims against the unknown Black Lives Matter member without prejudice. It denied the discovery requests as moot and denied permission to amend. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.