Gerges v. Hudson
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Gerges v. Hudson: Judge Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Tony Albert Gerges’s complaint was dismissed before the case proceeded on the underlying allegations. Chris Hudson and Staten Island University Hospital were defendants, and Gerges was denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Gerges v. Hudson, Tony Albert Gerges, who was representing himself, alleged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation drugged him, implanted a tracking device, and injured him, and that a Staten Island doctor harmed his organs. He sought $10 million in damages.
The court found that these allegations lacked factual support and were irrational and wholly incredible. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow Gerges to amend it because the problems could not be fixed by an amendment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the federal law governing fee-free lawsuits. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Gerges v. Hudson · No. 1:23-cv-02587
- Laura Swain
- May 30, 2023
Background
Tony Albert Gerges, appearing without a lawyer, sued Chris Hudson, identified as an FBI agent, and Staten Island University Hospital. Gerges alleged that the FBI drugged him, implanted an illegal chip and tracker, and installed a device in his Jeep. He also alleged that a doctor at the hospital harmed his stomach nerve, kidneys, liver, lungs, and bladder. He sought $10,000,000 in damages.
The court had previously allowed Gerges to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The opinion also notes that, in a prior related proceeding, a federal court dismissed substantially similar claims as frivolous.
Court’s Analysis
When a person proceeds without prepaying filing fees, federal law requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or directed against a defendant protected from money damages. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, the allegations still must have a factual or legal basis.
The court concluded that Gerges did not provide factual support for his allegations. It characterized the allegations as irrational, wholly incredible, and clearly baseless. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court declined to grant Gerges permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by an amendment. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.