Pedotti v. Mount Sinai
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06199
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pedotti v. Mount Sinai, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied amendment requests as moot.
The plaintiff’s action against Mount Sinai and the other named defendants was dismissed as frivolous. The plaintiff also received a warning that future frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on new filings and was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Pedotti v. Mount Sinai, the plaintiff, who was representing herself, alleged medical malpractice, genetic material collection, and illegal human experimentation involving Mount Sinai and other defendants. She sought monetary damages and had received permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the complaint was largely made up of conclusions and provided no facts supporting the alleged human experimentation. It concluded that the allegations lacked a factual or legal basis and were legally frivolous.
Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denied the plaintiff’s requests for permission to amend as moot, and entered judgment. The court also warned that further frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on future filings and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Pedotti v. Mount Sinai · No. 1:22-cv-06199
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
The plaintiff appeared without a lawyer and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. She alleged “medical malpractice,” “DNA/RNA genetic harvesting,” and “illegal human experimentation” involving the named defendants, including Mount Sinai and several government agencies and individuals. She sought monetary damages.
Legal standard
For a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that 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 contain enough factual allegations to make a legally plausible claim. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the complaint was largely conclusory and provided no facts supporting the assertion that the defendants used the plaintiff in an illegal human experiment. The court also stated that the complaint contained no facts suggesting that the alleged actions were possible. It therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court declined to allow amendment because it concluded that the plaintiff’s irrational allegations could not be corrected by changing the complaint. In the conclusion, the court denied the plaintiff’s requests for permission to amend as moot.
Additional rulings
The court warned that further nonmeritorious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring the plaintiff from filing new actions without prior permission. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment, and all other pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.