Dixon v. Wing
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00227
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Dixon v. Wing: Judge Swain dismissed Dixon’s frivolous lawsuit and denied fee-free appeal status.
The order ended Yusuf F. Dixon’s complaint against Brett Wing, John Hunker, Eleanor Fallon, and Jane Doe. It also denied Dixon fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Dixon v. Wing, Yusuf F. Dixon, representing himself, sued Brett Wing, John Hunker, Eleanor Fallon, and Jane Doe. He cited a federal defamation law and criminal statutes, alleged interference and conspiracies, and sought $100 billion, an investigation, and an end to interference with his family-court case.
The court ruled that Dixon’s allegations did not fit the federal defamation law he cited, which concerns certain foreign defamation judgments. It also ruled that a private person cannot start a federal criminal prosecution or force prosecutors to bring criminal charges. The court found no legal theory supporting the complaint and concluded that amending it would be futile.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the federal law governing fee-free lawsuits. She denied fee-free status for any appeal, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and did not allow Dixon to amend the complaint.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Wing · No. 1:23-cv-00227
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Yusuf F. Dixon, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Brett Wing, John Hunker, Eleanor Fallon, and Jane Doe. He invoked the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), 28 U.S.C. § 4101, and several federal criminal statutes. He alleged that the events occurred at “Shoprite’s of Westchester and outside of said Shoprite’s” on multiple dates since 2013 or 2014. His allegations included defamation, conspiracies, interference with agency functions, conspiracy to defraud the United States, deprivation of rights under color of law, bodily harm, and interference with several proceedings and institutions.
Dixon requested $100 billion, a “full investigation,” and an order stopping interference with his family-court case. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks authority to decide.
The court held that the complaint did not plead facts covered by the SPEECH Act. The court explained that the Act concerns enforcement of certain foreign defamation judgments, and Dixon’s allegations did not involve that subject.
The court also held that Dixon could not initiate federal criminal charges against individuals in a civil lawsuit. The decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and Dixon could not obtain an order requiring prosecutors to bring criminal proceedings. The court therefore concluded that the allegations based on federal criminal statutes failed to state a claim for relief.
Even after reading the complaint liberally because Dixon was unrepresented, the court found no legal theory on which he could rely. It concluded that the defects could not be corrected by amendment and therefore declined to give him permission to file an amended complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed Dixon’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.