Czornyj v. Henderson

Background

Brian C. Czornyj filed this action without a lawyer, together with a request to proceed without paying filing fees and a motion to seal a filing. The court had already granted the fee request. The court treated the sealing motion as a request to seal the complaint.

The complaint named the University of Pittsburg and two individuals, Andrew Henderson and Juan Xing. Czornyj alleged, among other things, that Henderson claimed to be connected to the Central Intelligence Agency, made threats, and subjected him to public torture. He described injuries including psychological trauma, suspected memory damage, sexual damage, and social-functioning problems. He sought “property with a SKIF for protection from cybertorture.”

The complaint also referred to characters and storylines from the television series Game of Thrones, including descriptions in which Czornyj identified himself with characters from that series.

Motion to Seal

The court explained that court filings are generally subject to a common-law and constitutional right of public access. A complaint is a “judicial document,” meaning a filing relevant to the court’s work and the public’s ability to monitor the courts. Although that right is not absolute, the court found that Czornyj had not shown a sufficient reason to overcome the presumption of access. The court therefore denied the motion to seal the complaint.

The court directed the clerk to remove the existing electronic restrictions that limited access to the complaint.

Dismissal

Because Czornyj had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court said that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but concluded that the complaint was frivolous.

The court found that the portions summarizing Game of Thrones were frivolous on their face, that the portions placing Czornyj within those narratives were also frivolous, and that the allegations concerning Henderson appeared irrational to the extent Czornyj alleged that they actually occurred and involved him. The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous.

Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to amend defective pleadings, the court concluded that amendment would be futile. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to seal, ordered removal of the complaint’s electronic access restrictions, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.