Chen v. Con Edison

Background

Victor Chen, appearing without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against ConEdison; the United States Department of Energy; the United States Department of the Treasury; Yale University; the New York State Public Service Commission; certain surgical practitioners to be named; and Keechant Sewell, identified as the Police Commissioner of New York City. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted claims under the Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The complaint did not contain a clear statement of his claims. Instead, Chen directed the court to letters and other documents. He alleged that the government and others might have surveilled him or interfered with his life, and that people connected to ConEdison and the energy industries had entered his apartment and performed secret medical procedures affecting his sexual functioning. He also complained about ConEdison’s gas and electric bills and its failure to answer his letters. He sought an order preventing ConEdison from shutting off his utilities until it answered his questions, substantial damages, and an investigation into alleged burglaries and surveillance.

Legal Standard

Because Chen had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss the case if it lacked authority to hear it. Although courts must read filings by people without lawyers liberally, they are not required to entertain allegations that have no arguable factual or legal basis.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the amended complaint had no arguable basis in fact or law. It concluded that Chen’s suspicions and conclusory assertions about medical experimentation, surveillance, and interference by ConEdison, the government, and others did not provide plausible factual support. The court also found that Chen had pleaded no factual basis showing that any defendant had intruded into his life and could identify no legal theory under which he could proceed.

The court determined that the defects could not be corrected by another amendment. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend. The court noted Chen’s history of other cases and prior warnings concerning frivolous litigation but stated that it did not need to address that history further because related proceedings already required him to explain why he should not be restricted from filing future cases without paying fees.

Disposition

The court dismissed Chen’s amended complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It terminated all other pending matters. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Chen permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.