Chen v. United States of America

Background

Victor Chen sued the United States, Merrick Garland, and Damian Williams. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants violated rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint alleged that events occurred in “New York City and elsewhere” from July 13, 1964, through the present. Chen referred to his 1964 citizenship oath and certificate, his work as a journalist and historian, letters sent to Representative Jerry Nadler and Chief Justice John Roberts, and prior complaints. For relief, he asked the court to acknowledge that his complaint was true and that the United States and state courts had used him, his property, and his privacy in violation of his citizenship certificate.

Chen was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had 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 explained that it had to dismiss a case when it lacked authority to hear the subject matter, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that the complaint was frivolous. A frivolous claim may involve factual allegations that are clearly baseless or a legal theory that has no arguable merit. The court found that Chen’s allegation that he might be used as a “female” in reproductive-rights cases provided no plausible factual support. It also found that he pleaded no facts showing that the defendants had violated his First or Fourth Amendment rights and that the court could identify no legal theory allowing him to proceed.

The court declined to permit amendment because it found that the complaint’s defect could not be cured by amendment. The opinion also described Chen’s prior litigation and an earlier warning that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without prior permission. The court did not further address those possible filing restrictions because Chen had already been ordered to explain why such restrictions should not be imposed.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court terminated all other pending matters, did not grant leave to amend, and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Chen permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.