Lin v. Lin
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-09263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lin v. Lin, Judge Abrams dismissed Chun Hua Lin’s complaint as frivolous but allowed amendment within 30 days.
Chun Hua Lin’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Chun Hua Lin may amend it within 30 days if there is a good-faith basis. The four defendants—Xiu Ying Lin, Jin Cheng Lin, Xiuying Lin, and Jincheng Lin—remain named in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Lin v. Lin, Chun Hua Lin sued four individuals without a lawyer, alleging that they used an electronic device to control bodily functions, hear conversations, and cause physical and mental harm.
The court concluded that these allegations were fanciful, irrational, or wholly incredible and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. It nevertheless allowed Chun Hua Lin to file an amended complaint within 30 days if there was a good-faith basis to state a legal claim.
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied permission to appeal without paying court fees to the extent it was sought, and directed that the order be mailed to Chun Hua Lin.
The detailed version
- Lin v. Lin · No. 1:22-cv-09263
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
Chun Hua Lin brought this action without a lawyer against Xi Ying Lin, Jin Cheng Lin, Xiuying Lin, and Jincheng Lin. The filing fee was paid. The complaint alleged that Chun Hua Lin could sometimes feel the defendants speaking, feel something inside the organs, and experience the defendants controlling the mouth, breathing, and hand movements. It also alleged that the defendants could hear conversations, use the vocal cords, hands, and mouth to control behavior, interfere with sleep and dreams, and cause soreness.
The complaint attributed these events to an “electronic mind control weapon” and included a purported description and diagram of the device. It also described alleged effects of an “electronic harassment weapon,” including “FORCED SPEECH,” “MICROWAVE HEARING,” and “TRANSPARENT EYELIDS.”
Legal standard
The court explained that pleadings filed by a person without a lawyer must be read liberally, but a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous even when the filing fee has been paid. A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact. The court may find factual frivolousness when alleged facts are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the complaint’s claims rested entirely on the allegations of mental torment and inability to concentrate caused by the defendants’ supposed control of Chun Hua Lin’s body. It concluded that the complaint was filled with fantastic and delusional scenarios and that no legal theory supported a claim for relief.
The court noted that district courts generally give people proceeding without lawyers an opportunity to amend defective complaints. Although it was highly skeptical that the defects could be cured, the court granted Chun Hua Lin leave to amend to add allegations that plausibly state a legal cause of action. A footnote also stated that the complaint did not explain why venue was proper in the Southern District of New York rather than the Eastern District of New York, given the allegation that the harm occurred in Flushing, Queens.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the complaint as frivolous, without prejudice. Chun Hua Lin may amend the complaint within 30 days, but only to the extent there is a good-faith basis to do so. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, to the extent that permission was sought. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Chun Hua Lin.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.