Dixon v. Bakish
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00480
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dixon v. Bakish, Judge Swain dismissed Yusuf Dixon’s complaint as frivolous, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and ordered judgment entered.
Yusuf Dixon’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The named defendants were Robert Marc Bakish, Naveen Chopra, Philip R. Wiser, and Neeraj Khemlani.
What happened
In Dixon v. Bakish, Yusuf Dixon, representing himself, sued individuals associated with Paramount and CBS News. He asked CBS to stop broadcasting things and telling people where he was, and sought an investigation and a very large amount of money.
The court found that the complaint was frivolous because it had no valid legal theory or facts supporting the federal laws Dixon cited. The court also said Dixon could not ask the court to start a criminal prosecution against the defendants. It declined to allow him to amend the complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denied Dixon fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Bakish · No. 1:23-cv-00480
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 22, 2023
Background
Yusuf Dixon, who was representing himself, sued Robert Marc Bakish, Naveen Chopra, Philip R. Wiser, and Neeraj Khemlani. The complaint sought an order requiring CBS to stop broadcasting things and telling people where Dixon was. Dixon also requested a full investigation and “hundred trillion dollars.”
The complaint identified the defendants as individuals associated with Paramount and CBS News. It cited harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, defamation under the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, interference with agency functions under 36 C.F.R. § 2.32, and obstruction or impairment of legitimate government activity under an unidentified provision of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Court’s analysis
Because Dixon had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought relief barred by immunity. A frivolous claim is one that lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact.
The court read the self-represented complaint generously but concluded that no legal theory supported Dixon’s claims. Although he cited the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the SPEECH Act, the court found that he pleaded no facts implicating either statute. The court also explained that a private person cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution or obtain an order forcing prosecutors to bring criminal charges.
The court stated that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but that amendment is not required when it would be futile. It found Dixon’s claims frivolous and declined to grant permission to amend.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Dixon permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.