Dixon v. Guterres
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00482
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dixon v. Guterres, Chief Judge Swain dismissed Yusuf F. Dixon’s pro se complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Yusuf F. Dixon and the named defendants. The order also warned that future duplicative or frivolous lawsuits by Dixon could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without paying fees.
What happened
In Dixon v. Guterres, Yusuf F. Dixon sued officials of the United Nations, alleging harassment, mental abuse, and efforts to influence his son. He sought a full investigation and damages in an undisclosed amount, relying on the SPEECH Act and federal criminal statutes.
The court explained that people cannot bring federal criminal prosecutions themselves and that Dixon’s allegations did not support a claim under the SPEECH Act. The court also found that the complaint’s defects could not be fixed by amendment, so it declined to allow him to amend it.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the statute governing fee-free lawsuits, and also described the action as dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court warned Dixon that further duplicative or frivolous lawsuits could lead to restrictions on filing new fee-free cases and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Guterres · No. 1:23-cv-00482
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 3, 2023
Background
Yusuf F. Dixon appeared without a lawyer and sued officials of the United Nations, including Antonio Guterres, Asa Regner, Anita Bhatia, and Sima Bahous. The opinion identifies Guterres as the Secretary General of the United Nations and describes the other defendants with positions or affiliations stated in the complaint.
Dixon alleged that events occurred during “the last four years” and “everywhere.” His allegations included claims that people were making others think he liked gay men, sending such people to places he visited, harassing him, mentally abusing him, and attempting to influence his 10-year-old son through the child’s school, home, and mother. Dixon sought a “full investigation” and damages in an undisclosed amount.
Dixon invoked the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, known as the SPEECH Act, and federal criminal statutes concerning alleged treason, racketeering, and other crimes. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s analysis
When a person is allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a legally recognizable claim plausible.
The court noted that Dixon’s complaint was substantially similar to other complaints he had filed in the court. It explained that an individual cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution because the decision to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor. The court also concluded that Dixon’s complaint pleaded no facts implicating the SPEECH Act, which concerns enforcement of certain foreign defamation judgments.
The court therefore dismissed Dixon’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It further stated that the defects could not be cured by amendment, declined to give Dixon permission to amend, and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Disposition and warning
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint. The order did not grant leave to amend. It warned that continued duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Dixon from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judgment was to be entered.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.