No v. The Representative of USA United States of America

Background and procedural history

Jeong-Suk No filed the complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on March 22, 2019. The United States Government, appearing as the defendant, removed the action to the Southern District of New York on September 15, 2023.

No proceeded without a lawyer. The complaint alleged “physical injury” from incidents in Seoul, South Korea, in 2018, and New York City, in 2019. The Seoul allegations included unexplained property damage, a “heater attack,” and a “sound attack.” The New York allegations included unspecified incidents at a bookstore and library, alleged control of biological organs, a “marketing attack,” and stalking and sound attacks. The complaint also referred to alleged green-card, bank-loan, and romance scams. It did not provide factual details about the incidents’ causes or explain the defendant’s supposed involvement.

The defendant filed a letter stating that it intended to seek dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). No did not respond to that letter or otherwise pursue the case after removal. The court also noted that No had filed nine earlier actions in the district, all of which had been dismissed on the court’s own initiative, and that No had previously been barred from filing lawsuits without paying the filing fee unless the court granted permission.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that it could dismiss a complaint as frivolous on its own initiative, even if the plaintiff had paid the filing fee. A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. For a pro se complaint, meaning one filed without a lawyer, the court must read the allegations broadly, but dismissal is proper when the factual claims are clearly baseless or the legal theory is indisputably meritless.

The court concluded that the allegations rose to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible. It could not identify factual allegations supporting a viable claim against the defendant or an articulable legal theory. The court also found that the complaint repeated allegations raised in earlier related proceedings that had been dismissed as frivolous.

The court determined that the defects were substantive and could not be corrected through amendment. Because amendment would be futile, the court declined to allow No to file an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It denied No leave to amend. It also denied as moot the defendant’s letter motion seeking a pre-motion conference, directed the clerk to terminate that motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the case.