Jones v. NYPD
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jones v. NYPD, Judge Swain dismissed Jones’s complaint as frivolous and declined to allow an amendment.
Tarnell Leon Jones’s civil-rights action was dismissed as frivolous, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The defendants were no longer required to litigate the action in the district court, and the case was closed by entry of judgment.
What happened
In Jones v. NYPD, Tarnell Leon Jones, representing himself, sued the NYPD and other defendants under a civil-rights law. He sought money damages and alleged that people beat, shot, and harassed him, while also identifying himself as Tupac Amaru Shakur and Lesane Parish Crooks.
The court found that the complaint did not provide a plausible factual basis for a legal claim. It ruled that the allegations were irrational and frivolous, meaning they had no arguable basis in fact or law. The court also found that changing the complaint would not fix its defects.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow Jones to amend it, terminated the other pending matters, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Jones v. NYPD · No. 1:22-cv-04995
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Tarnell Leon Jones, who was incarcerated at the San Carlos Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He sued “NY PD,” “Goverment Cumandty,” “LAPD,” and “COLORADO DENVER PD,” and sought money damages. The complaint did not identify where the events occurred and listed the dates as “1990-95.”
Jones alleged that people beat him while he was handcuffed, shot him at different times, and harassed him while he walked down the street. He also said, “I am back 2Pac Makaveli,” and brought the action under the names Tupac Amaru Shakur and Lesane Parish Crooks. He requested numerous medical tests and described an injury involving an alleged effort to have his prophet heal him.
Screening standard
Because Jones was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Those provisions require dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls within the statute’s dismissal grounds. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the complaint presented no arguable basis in fact or law. It found that Jones provided no plausible factual support for his claims and no factual basis showing that the defendants violated his rights. The court characterized the allegations as irrational and concluded that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court also considered whether Jones should be allowed to amend the complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the irrational allegations could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It terminated all other pending matters and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.