Pedotti v. Grand Lodge of the State of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pedotti v. Grand Lodge, Judge Swain dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous and denied permission to amend.
The plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, her requests for permission to amend were denied as moot, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The named defendants were not required to litigate the complaint after its dismissal.
What happened
In Pedotti v. Grand Lodge of the State of New York, the plaintiff, who represented herself, alleged that a computer program had remotely changed and damaged her body without her consent. She sought “trillions” of dollars and filed additional requests, including permission to amend and a medical injunction.
The court said the complaint provided no supporting facts and that its allegations were irrational and lacked a basis in law or fact. It therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the federal law governing complaints filed without court fees and concluded that amendment would be futile.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the requests for permission to amend as moot, terminated outstanding motions, entered judgment, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pedotti v. Grand Lodge of the State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-06296
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
The plaintiff appeared without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. She alleged that she was being “Remotely Morphed and Disfigured” into a “Masculine and Americanized version” of herself through a non-consensual human experiment. She also alleged that a computer program had destroyed or altered many parts of her body and personal characteristics. She attached photographs and requested “trillions” of dollars in damages.
After filing the complaint, she submitted requests for permission to amend, a medical injunction, and other relief.
Legal standard
When a person proceeds without paying the filing fee, the court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the dispute. Although courts read self-represented pleadings generously, the complaint still must include facts supporting a plausible claim.
A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court cited decisions explaining that allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational, wholly incredible, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court concluded that the complaint was largely conclusory and supplied no facts supporting the plaintiff’s assertions. It also found that the complaint provided no factual basis for evaluating her claims and contained no facts suggesting that the alleged actions were possible. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court declined to give the plaintiff permission to amend because it found that the irrational allegations could not be cured through amendment. The plaintiff’s requests for permission to amend were denied as moot. The court directed the clerk to terminate outstanding motions and enter judgment.
The court also stated that the plaintiff had previously been warned that continued nonmeritorious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order requiring prior permission before she could file new actions without paying the filing fee. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.