Serkez v. Gov. Agencys
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Serkez v. Gov Agencys, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Joseph Serkez’s action was dismissed, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The ruling also denied him permission to appeal without paying fees and warned of possible restrictions on future fee-free filings. The opinion does not identify any other defendant clearly enough to describe a separate effect on that party.
What happened
Joseph Serkez, representing himself, sued various unidentifiable defendants and asked for “a better government.” The court said his allegations did not identify understandable facts, defendants, or rights violations.
The court dismissed the action as frivolous, meaning it lacked a reasonable factual or legal basis. It did not allow Serkez to amend because the defects could not be fixed, and it warned that continued frivolous filings could lead to restrictions on filing without paying fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered judgment on September 26, 2022. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Serkez permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Serkez v. Gov. Agencys · No. 1:22-cv-08013
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Joseph Serkez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He sued various unidentifiable defendants, including entities or people described as “legislator,” “human,” and “gov agencys.” He alleged that his claims arose “everywhere” and that the events occurred “constant[ly].” The complaint did not clearly state the relief requested, although it included the phrase “give us a better government.”
The court had previously granted Serkez permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion describes a prior similar suit in an earlier related proceeding, No. 20-CV-0869 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020), as having also been dismissed as frivolous without permission to replead.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirements for complaints filed by people proceeding without paying fees. Those requirements call for dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they could suggest.
The court nevertheless found that Serkez’s allegations did not provide an intelligible set of facts or explain what any identifiable defendant did to violate his rights. It characterized allegations including “subsidized backyard farming tranquilizer bullets” as clearly baseless and irrational. The court concluded that no legal theory could support a viable claim based on those facts.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to give Serkez permission to amend because the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The court warned that continued frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Serkez from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first received permission.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Judgment was ordered to be entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.