Lunz v. Trumph
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04902
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lunz v. Trumph, Judge Swain dismissed Lunz’s frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
The dismissal ended Lunz’s action, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The court also denied him fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not impose relief on the defendant.
What happened
In Lunz v. Trumph, Joseph Edward Francis Lunz, representing himself, sued Donald Joseph Trumph and invoked religious freedom. He sought to bar Jews from public office and requested $100 billion in damages.
The court said the complaint did not identify a legal basis for the requested relief and that its factual allegations were irrational. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the federal law governing complaints filed without prepaying fees and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be cured.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to mail the order to Lunz and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Lunz fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Lunz v. Trumph · No. 1:21-cv-04902
- Laura Swain
- June 15, 2021
Background
Joseph Edward Francis Lunz brought the action without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued Donald Joseph Trumph, whom the court understood to be former President Donald John Trump. Lunz invoked federal-question jurisdiction and referred to the First Amendment’s protection for religious freedom. He stated that his claim arose on May 12, 1946.
The handwritten complaint alleged that Lunz had been frightened as a child by violence attributed to Jews and sought to prevent Jews from running for public office and serving in government. He also requested $100 billion in damages. The court noted that portions of the factual allegations were difficult to read.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally supportable claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact. The court also said it must interpret complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, meaning it must read them generously when identifying possible claims.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that, even when read generously, Lunz’s complaint did not allege facts supporting a plausible legal claim. It said Lunz had identified no legal basis for seeking an injunction or damages against a former President. The court also found that the factual allegations were irrational and therefore treated the complaint as frivolous.
Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court said amendment would be futile here. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed Lunz’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Lunz a copy of the order and record service on the docket. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lunz permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.