Reeder v. McCabe
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Reeder v. McCabe, Judge Swain dismissed Reeder’s civil-rights complaint as frivolous after screening it.
Raszell Reeder’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed at the court’s initial screening stage. The order also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Reeder v. McCabe, Raszell Reeder, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued numerous government officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that officials ignored letters and evidence about computer chemicals, secret technologies, and other matters, and sought investigations, protection, expungement of criminal charges, and help returning to Somalia.
The court said the allegations did not appear rational and did not show a legal basis for a valid claim. Because the court found that the problems could not be fixed by changing the complaint, it did not allow Reeder to amend it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action as frivolous under the prisoner-screening law. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Reeder v. McCabe · No. 1:21-cv-04324
- Laura Swain
- June 14, 2021
Background
Raszell Reeder filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. The complaint named numerous defendants, including federal officials, members of Congress, the Vice President, New York State officials, New York City officials, and judicial officers. The court had previously allowed Reeder to proceed without paying the filing fee at the start of the case, although the opinion noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee over time.
Reeder alleged that officials failed to respond to emergency letters and evidence concerning matters including “computer chemicals,” secret technologies, government activity, and alleged control of people through chemicals or computers. He requested investigations, increased security, expungement of criminal charges, and assistance returning to Somalia with government protection.
Screening standard
Because Reeder was proceeding without paying the filing fee and was incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Those provisions require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court said it had to read a self-represented complaint generously and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even under that generous reading, Reeder’s claims did not appear rational and had no apparent legal theory supporting viable claims. It characterized the allegations about sending emergency letters to government officials concerning “computer chemicals” and related matters as insufficient to establish a valid legal claim.
Courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint. Here, however, the court found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Reeder permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Reeder a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.