Swint v. Verizon Wireless
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Swint v. Verizon Wireless, Judge Swain dismissed the incoherent complaint as frivolous, denied amendment, and ordered Swint to explain why future fee-free filings should not require permission.
Robert James Swint’s case was dismissed, and he was required to explain why a future filing restriction should not be imposed. Verizon Wireless and D.O.D. (Department of Defense) were the defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Swint v. Verizon Wireless, Robert James Swint sued Verizon Wireless and the Department of Defense, seeking unspecified relief. Swint was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court found that his allegations were undecipherable and did not identify any legal injury or recognizable claim.
The court dismissed the action as frivolous and denied Swint permission to amend the complaint. It also ordered him to submit, within 30 days, a written explanation showing why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying fees unless he first received court permission. The court said that if he did not provide an adequate explanation, the filing restriction would be imposed.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on July 27, 2023. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Swint permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Swint v. Verizon Wireless · No. 1:23-cv-04067
- Laura Swain
- July 27, 2023
Background
Robert James Swint sued Verizon Wireless and D.O.D. (Department of Defense), seeking unspecified relief. He was representing himself. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Swint’s complaint was written on a motion form and contained allegations referring to Verizon, contracts, financial laws, government officials, drug laws, Jesus’s return, and other subjects. The court stated that the allegations were undecipherable, that the statement of the claim was incoherent, and that the complaint did not suggest any legal injury.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. A complaint is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or wholly incredible. The court also recognized that it must interpret a self-represented party’s pleadings generously and consider the strongest claims the pleadings reasonably suggest.
Even under that generous interpretation, the court found no decipherable facts suggesting a legal claim. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied Swint permission to amend the complaint.
Order to show cause
The court noted that Swint had previously been warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to a restriction on filing new civil actions without paying fees and without first obtaining court permission. Because the court found this action frivolous, it ordered Swint to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why that filing restriction should not be imposed.
The court did not impose the restriction in this order. Instead, it gave Swint notice and an opportunity to respond. The court stated that if he failed to submit a declaration on time, or if the declaration did not show good cause, the court would bar him from filing future civil actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous, denied leave to amend, and directed Swint to show cause by declaration within 30 days. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.